
iif 

ii lift- 



JAMES SHIRLEY 

DRAMATIST ™1 



I 1; .i' ' I i !i r 1 .'I ' ^ ■ 



' |lhiili:i!|i;|i|i!i;i|;:i':' 



Ilii'i'Sl' i ';f' I;; ::': 



BYniiiiiiiiitHiiiiit 






lt!i 



'i'i'!ii!;';''!i' 



ARTHUR HUNTINGTON NASON 

ItHIHIIIIIIIII 






m 






h'!!i(iir"!i s' 



i^i!^< 



Hill !!!>ii:!i^iiili'''- 1'' ■!'"■! 



m 






m 



tl!' 



il'lr 






iiir 

■ 111 






Si 









UUM! Ill:, ,, 



i('» 






Mil . 



, , , - 1 i : 1 I ,1,1, I 1 

.I'll. :'",)"" 



ii'iiNi-i'' ',■-'' 



i^ii; 



Ji HI 

I IT 

It I 



!l 



*< 1 1 



I" I'-'t 
'I' , ' '♦ 

mi 

ll'iii d 

'"lllf 



u ;i!|i 







PRESENTED BY 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 



BT THE 




SAME AUTHOR 




HERALDS AND HERALDRY IN 


BEN 


JONSON-S PLAYS, MASQUES, 


AND 


ENTERTAINMENTS. 1907- 




TALKS ON THEME WRITING 


AND 


KINDRED TOPICS. 1909- 




SHORT THEMES: A FRESHMAN 


MAN- 


UAL FOR THE FIRST SEMESTER 


, 1909. 


SECOND EDITION, ENLARGED, 


1910. 


SHORT THEMES AND LONG. 


1915. 



JAMES SHIRLEY 
DRAMATIST 

A BIOGRAPHICAL . 
AND CRITICAL STUDY 



BY 

ARTHUR HUNTINGTON NASON 

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH IN 
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AND INSTRUC- 
TOR IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 



SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF 

PHILOSOPHY IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 



ARTHUR H. NASON, Publisher 
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, NEW YORK CITY 

1915 



h 






Copyright, 191 5, by 
Arthur Huntington Nason 



Gift 

)8I5 



PREFACE 

TO eliminate at least a few of the inaccuracies 
of fact and inference that have perverted 
previous accounts of Shirley's life; to re- 
move the popular impression— fostered by many a 
better critic than Charles Kingsley— that Shirley is 
merely a contributor to the comedy of manners at its 
worst; to trace Shirley's development as a dramatist 
from the realistic to the romantic school ; and to show 
the quality of his work not merely in the comedy of 
manners and of humors but notably in dramatic 
romance, in romantic comedy, and in romantic trag- 
edy: such, in the fields of scholarship and apprecia- 
tion, is the endeavor of this biographical and critical 
study of the principal dramatic poet of the reign of 
Charles the First. 

Begun under the inspiring influence of Professor 
William Peterfield Trent, continued under the 
friendly oversight of Professor William Witherle 
Lawrence, and completed under the searching criti- 
cism of Professor Ashley Horace Thorndike, the 
work here submitted is the result of many satisfying 
hours of labor in the graduate school of Columbia 
University. 

To these gentlemen preeminently, and to the other 



PREFACE 

members of the department of English and Compara- 
tive Literature at Columbia, my thanks are due; yet 
my debt elsewhere must not pass unacknowledged. 
To the officers of the libraries of Columbia Univer- 
sity, of New York University, of Yale, of Harvard, 
and of the University of Pennsylvania; of the New 
York City, the Boston, and the Maine State libraries; 
of the British Museum and the Bodleian; to the offi- 
cers of Merchant Taylors' School, of St. Mary Wool- 
church, of St. Giles Cripplegate, and of St. Giles in 
the Fields; to the Oxford University Press, to the 
Misses Stokes and Cox, record agents, to Mr. Arthur 
P. Monger, photographer, and to The De Vinne 
Press : to all of these I return grateful thanks. 

Nor must I close without a word of hearty con- 
gratulation to my friend Dr. Robert Stanley Forsythe 
of Adelbert College, upon the appearance of his 
study. The Relations of Shirley's Plays to the Eliza- 
bethan Drama. Although his conclusions upon cer- 
tain questions of Shirleian chronology are somewhat 
more conservative than I could wish, I account his 
book not merely a most scholarly addition to our 
knowledge of the plays of Shirley, but also a notable 
contribution to the history of drarnatic art. 

A. H. N. 
New York University, 
March i6, 1915. 



CONTENTS 



Part I: THE LIFE OF SHIRLEY 

Chapter I. Shirley's Predramatic Period. 1596- 
1625. 

Shirley's relation to his times, 3. — His position as shown by his rec- 
ord for a single year, 1633, 4. — His position as shown by his record 
as a whole, 5. — The threefold purpose of the present study: to 
determine the chronology of his life, the course of his development 
as a dramatist, and the distinctive characteristics of his dramatic 
works, 5. — The status of Shirleian scholarship, 6. — The five periods 
of his life, 7. — His parentage, 8. — First hypothesis, 8. — Second 
hypothesis, 11. — Third hypothesis, 14. — Probable solution: "James 
the Sonne of James Sharlie," baptized September 7, 1596, in St. 
Mary Woolchurch, 15. — His record at Merchant Taylors' School, 
20. — His university career, 21. — Was he a student at St. John's 
College, Oxford? 22. — Was he later a student at Katherine Hall, 
Cambridge? 25. — Did he ever take degrees? 30. — Conclusions, 31. 
— Life at St. Albans, 31. — Chapter summary, 33. 

Chapter II. Shirley's First Dramatic Period. 
1625-1632. 

Plan of the chapter, 35. — The date of his arrival in London, 35. — 
The birth of his first son, Mathias, 37. — Licensing of Love Tricks, 
luith Complements, The Maid's Revenge, and The Brothers, and 
the presentation of The Wedding, 38. — The office-book of Sir 
Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, our ultimate source of in- 
formation, 39. — Question as to the date of The Wedding, 40. — 
Licensing of The Witty Fair One and The Grateful Servant, 41. — 
Publication of The Wedding, 41. — Of The Grateful Servant, 42. 
— Licensing of The Traitor, The Duke, and Love's Cruelty, 43. — 
Publication of Love Tricks as The School of Complement, 44. — 
Licensing of The Changes, Hyde Park, and The Ball, 44. — Publica- 



CONTENTS 

tion of Changes^ or Love in a Maze, 45. — Herbert censors The 
Ball, 45. — The Brothers of 1626 is not the play of that title that 
was published in 1652, 46. — For the play published as The Poli- 
tician is not, as some would assume, the play licensed as The Po- 
litique Father, 47. — And with this Politique Father must we 
identify The Brothers of 1652, not with The Brothers of 1626, 54. 
— Yet The Brothers of 1626 is probably not to be identified with 
Dicke of Devonshire, but is rather to be accounted lost, 62. — Chap- 
ter summary, 68. 

Chapter III. Shirley's Second Dramatic Pe- 
riod. 1632-1636. 

Probable date of the production of The Arcadia, 70. — Licensing of 
The Bewties {The Bird in a Cage), The Young Admiral, and The 
Gamester, 72. — Herbert commends The Young Admiral, 73. — And 
The Gamester, 74. — Publication of The Wedding (second edition), 
A Contention for Honor and Riches, The Witty Fair One, and The 
Bird in a Cage, 74. — Shirley's attack on Prynne, 76. — The produc- 
tion of The Triumph of Peace, 79. — The licensing of The Example 
and The Opportunity, 81. — The publication of The Triumph of 
Peace, 81. — The publication of The Traitor, 81. — The licensing of 
The Coronation, Chahot, and The Lady of Pleasure, 82. — Extract 
from the diary of Sir Humphrey Mildmay, 82. — The Coronation 
falsely ascribed to Fletcher, 82. — Chabot primarily the work of 
Chapman, 83. — And, therefore, not to be discussed in our critical 
estimate of Shirley, 89. — The licensing of The Duke's Mistress, 
and its presentation at court, 89. — Chapter summary, 90. 

Chapter IV. Shirley's Third Dramatic Period. 
1 636-1 642. 

Date of Shirley's removal from London to Dublin, 91. — The occa- 
sion probably the plague in London, 92. — Work for Ogilby's theater 
in Werburgh Street, Dublin, 93. — Publication of The Lady of 
Pleasure, Hyde Park, and The Young Admiral, 94. — Of The Ex- 
ample and The Gamester, 95. — New editions of Love Tricks and 
The Grateful Servant, 96. — Publication of The Royal Master, 97. 
— Of The Duke^s Mistress, 98. — London presentation of The 
Royal Master, 99. — Publication of The Ball, Chabot, and The 
Maid's Revenge, lOO. — Plays entered in the Stationers' Register, 
loi. — The relation of The Humorous Courtier to The Duke and 
The Conceited Duke, 102. — Licensing of The Gentleman of Venice, 
103. — The Tragedy of St. Albons and Looke to the Ladie entered 



CONTENTS 

S. R., 104. — St. Patrick for Ireland and The Constant Maid en- 
tered S. R., 104. — Publication of The Humorous Courtier, Lovers 
Cruelty, The Arcadia, The Opportunity, and The Coronation, 105. 
— Of St. Patrick for Ireland and The Constant Maid, 106. — 
Licensing of The Doubtful Heir and The Imposture, 107. — Shir- 
ley's removal from Dublin to London, 107. — Licensing of The Poli- 
tique Father and The Cardinal, 107. — The licensing of The Sisters 
and the composition of The Court Secret, 108. — Six problems to be 
discussed, 109. — (i) The date of the Dublin presentation of The 
Royal Master, 109. — (2) Did Shirley visit London in 1637? ii4- — 
(3) Did he visit London in 1639? Ii5- — (4) On what date did 
Shirley end his Dublin residence? 117. — (5) What does Shirley 
mean by his loss of preferment? 119. — (6) Why did Shirley cease 
to write for the Queen's men and give his later plays to the King's 
men? 122. — An analysis of the arguments of Fleay and Nissen, 124. 
— Right of publication, 125. — The identity of the dramatic com- 
panies involved, 126. — Shirley's alleged grievance against the 
Queen's men evidently the invention of his biographers, 129. — A 
more obvious reason for Shirley's change, 130. — Chapter summary, 
131. — The prologue to his last acted comedy, The Sisters, 133. — 
The Civil War and the closing of the theaters, 135. 



Chapter V. Shirley's Post-dramatic Period. 
I 642-1 666. 

Shirley's military service under Newcastle, 136. — He resumes 
school-teaching, 137. — Publication of his Poems, 138. — Portrait by 
Marshall, 139. — Postscript to the Reader, 139. — Address "To the 
Reader" prefixed to the folio of the plays of Beaumont and 
Fletcher, 140. — Publication of Via ad Latinam Linguam Compla- 
nata, 141. — Publication of Six New Playes, 142. — "Catalogue of 
the Authors Poems Already Printed," 144. — Publication of Cupid 
and Death, 145. — Of The Politician and The Gentleman of Venice, 
146. — Of The Rudiments of Grammar and Manductio, 148. — Of 
Honoria and Mammon and The Contention of Ajax and Ulysses, 
148. — "The glories of our blood and state," 149. — Portrait by 
Phenik and Gaywood, 150. — The Bodleian portrait, 151. — Publica- 
tions 1657-1667, 152. — Collaboration with Newcastle and drudgery 
for Ogilby, 153. — Shirleian revivals under the Restoration, as re- 
corded by Herbert, Pepys, and Downes, 153. — Shirley's will, 1666, 
158. — Chapter summary, 161. — Shirley's death, 161. — His burial, 
162. 



0^1 



CONTENTS 

Part II: THE PLAYS OF SHIRLEY 

CHRONOLOGY OF PLAYS, FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD, 
1625-1632, 166. 

Chapter VI. The First Dramatic Period Begun. 

From Love Tricks to The Wedding. 

The character of the dramatic works of Shirley, and the evolution 
of Shirley as a dramatist, 167. — The character of his realistic 
plays, 168. — The character of his romantic plays, 168. — His first 
period predominantly realistic, 169. — Love Tricks a mixture of the 
two, 170. — Its plot, 170. — Its comic episodes, especially the School 
of Complement, 172. — Its use of old material, 173. — An acceptable 
rival for the latest Broadway "show," 174. — The Maid's Revenge, 
174. — Its plot, 174. — "A tragedy of much promise," 176. — The 
Wedding, a comedy of manners, 177. — Its main plot, 177. — Its sub- 
plot, 179. — Its use of old material, 180. — Its lack of unity, 181. — 
Chapter summary: the three plays considered indicate the scope of 
Shirley's work, romantic and realistic, 182. 

Chapter VII. The First Dramatic Period Con- 
tinued. The Witty Fair One and The Grateful 
Servant. 

Shirley's increasing power as a dramatist, 183. — The Witty Fair 
One, a comedy of London life and manners, 184. — Its major plot, 
184. — Its minor plot, 186. — Two faults of structure, 187. — Its 
characters: Sir Nicholas Treadle, 188. — Brains, 190. — Dramati- 
cally excellent, the play is morally repulsive, 190. — The Grateful 
Servant, a romantic comedy, with a realistic underplot, 191. — The 
major plot, 191. — The minor plot, 193. — The scenes highly effec- 
tive, 194. — The characterization, especially that of Jacomo, 195. — 
Chapter summary: Shirley's increasing power, 197. 

Chapter VIII. The First Dramatic Period Con- 
tinued. The Traitor. 

The Traitor, a romantic tragedy, 198. — Its plot, 198. — Falls short 
of highest effectiveness only because the struggle is external rather 
than internal, 201. — The characters, 202. — Lorenzo, 202. — Sciar- 
rha, 204. — The Duke, 207. — Amidea, 207. — The characterization 
highly praiseworthy, 210. — The comic relief: Depazzi, 211. — The 
verse, 212. — Swinburne's appreciation, 216. — Chapter summary: 
The Traitor a memorable achievement, 219. 



CONTENTS 

Chapter IX. The First Dramatic Period Con- 
cluded. From The Humorous Courtier to The 
Ball, 

The five plays still to be considered in this period all realistic, 221. 
— The Humorous Courtier, a new version of Every Man out of his 
Humour, 222. — The plot, 222. — More acceptable in Shirley's day 
than in ours, 223. — Lovers Cruelty, a realistic tragedy, 224. — The 
plot, 224. — Notable for the psychology of the Clariana-Hippolito 
scenes, for the use of realism in tragedy, for unflinching truth, and 
for severe morality, 225. — Changes, or Love in a Maze, a comedy 
of London life and manners, 226. — Its plot, 226. — Its characters of 
humor, 227. — Hyde Park, a realistic picture of London life and 
manners, 227. — Its threefold plot, 227. — Its improved characteriza- 
tion, 229. — Significant chiefly as a forward step in Shirley's mastery 
of character and setting, 229. — The Ball, a realistic picture of the 
life and manners of the court, 230. — Herbert's protest, 230. — Shir- 
ley's retort in The Lady of Pleasure, 231. — Swinburne's ill-founded 
criticism, 232. — The main plot, 233. — The second plot, 235. — Esti- 
mate of the play, 235. — Summary, first dramatic period: primarily 
realistic, 237. 

chronology of PLAYS, SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD, 

1 63 2- 1 63 6, 240. 

Chapter X. The Second Dramatic Period Be- 
gun. From The Arcadia to The Young Admiral. 

Shirley's second period predominantly romantic, 241. — The Arcadia, 
a Fletcherian dramatic romance, may be taken as a turning-point 
in the career of Shirley, 242. — The plot, 243. — Typical dramatic 
romance, 244. — The Bird in a Cage, Fletcherian dramatic romance 
turned into extravaganza, 245. — Its plot, 245. — The Young Ad- 
?niral, a romantic tragicomedy, 247. — Its plot, 247. — The nature of 
the struggle, 249. — The characterization, 250. — The comic mate- 
rial, 250. — The verse, 250. — Chapter summary: Shirley's increasing 
idealism, 252. 

Chapter XL The Second Dramatic Period Con- 
tinued. The Gamester and The Example. 

Shirley's temporary return to realism, 253. — His new realism tem- 
pered by idealism, 253. — The Gamester, a comedy of London life 
and manners, 254. — Its main plot highly dramatic, 254. — The fig- 
ures in the second plot, 255. — The third plot, a romantic love-story, 



CONTENTS 

256. — The characterization, 257. — The king's opinion, 258. — The 
Example^ a comedy of London life and manners, 258. — Its subplots, 
and the humor-characters involved, 258. — Its main plot, 259. — 
Swinburne's extravagant praise, 260. — Chapter summary, 261. 

Chapter XII. The Second Dramatic Period 

Continued. The Opportunity and The Corona- 
tion. 

The Opportunity, a charming romantic comedy, 263. — Its source, 
El Castigo del Penseque by Tirso de Molina, 263. — Its plot, 264. — 
Its delectability, 267. — Stiefel's comparison of The Opportunity 
with its source, 268. — The Coronation, a Fletcherian dramatic 
romance, 270. — Its plot, 271. — Its characterization, 272. — Its effec- 
tive situations, 273. — Chapter summary and summary of the second 
dramatic period to this point: five romantic plays as compared with 
two that are realistic, 274. 

Chapter XIII. The Second Dramatic Period 

Concluded. The Lady of Pleasure and The 
Duke^s Mistress. 

The two plays to be considered are typical of the work of Shirley in 
the realistic and romantic schools respectively, 276. — The Lady of 
Pleasure, a brilliant, satiric comedy of manners, 276. — Its plot, 277. 
— Its characters, 278. — The characterization, 279. — An approach 
to Restoration comedy, 279. — The Duke's Mistress, a romantic 
tragicomedy, 280. — Its plot, 281. — Typical in the method of its ex- 
position, 284. — Typical in its well-knit plot, 285. — Typical in its 
choice of scenes, 286. — Summary, second dramatic period: Shirley 
predominantly romantic, 287. 

CHRONOLOGY OF PLAYS, THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD, 

1636-1642, 290. 

Chapter XIV. The Third Dramatic Period Be- 
gun. The Royal Master, 

Order of presentation, 291. — The third period overwhelmingly 
romantic, 292. — The Royal Master, a romantic comedy, 293. — The 
first action, 293. — The second action, 296. — The characterization: 
Domitilla, 299. — Bombo, 300. — The sprightly dialogue, 300. — 
Chapter summary, 303. — Schipper's impressions, 303, note. 



CONTENTS 

Chapter XV. The Third Dramatic Period Con- 
tinued. From The Gentleman of Venice to The 
Constant Maid. 

Thorndike's comment on the romantic plays of Shirley, 304. — The 
Gentleman of Venice^ a romantic comedy with a realistic under- 
plot, 305. — The main plot, 305. — The repulsive underplot, 306. — 
Estimate, 306. — The Politician, a somber romantic tragedy, 307. — 
Its plot, 307. — The power of its scenes, 309. — Its tragic effect, 311. 
— St. Patrick for Ireland, a romantic medley, 313. — The Constant 
Maid, a reversion to Shirley's early comedies of London life and 
manners, 314. — Its highly complicated major plot, 314. — Surprise 
upon surprise, 317. — The minor plot, 318. — Weak in unity and in 
character-delineation, 318. — Chapter summary, 319. 

Chapter XVI. The Third Dramatic Period Con- 
tinued. From The Doubtful Heir to The Broth- 
ers of 1652. 

The six remaining plays of Shirley are among his best, 320. — The 
Doubtful Heir, a capital bit of Fletcherian romance, swift, exciting, 
poetic, 321. — Its highly romantic plot, 321. — Notable for its im- 
provement upon old material and for its dramatic economy, 324. — 
Typical Fletcherian romance in its slightness of characterization, 
326. — And in the character of its poetry: sweetness rather than 
strength, 327. — The Imposture, a comedy of romantic intrigue, 330. 
— Its plot, 330. — Its epilogue, 335. — The Politique Father, i.e., 
The Brothers of 1652, the last of Shirley's comedies of manners, 
336.. — Its major plot, 336. — Its minor characters and actions, 338. — 
Its verse, 339. — Chapter summary, 342. 

Chapter XVII. The Third Dramatic Period 
Continued. The Cardinal. 

The Cardinal, a romantic tragedy, 344. — Its effective plot, 344. — 
Its powerful scenes, 346. — Its notable characters, 347. — The 
Duchess Rosaura, 347. — Columbo, 351. — Hernando, 353. — The 
Cardinal, 356. — Chapter summary: a notable romantic tragedy, 360. 

Chapter XVIII. The Third Dramatic Period 

Concluded. The Sisters and The Court Secret. 

The Sisters, a gay mixture of romantic comedy and farce, 362. — Its 
structural unity, 362. — The plot, 363. — The characterization, 365. 



CONTENTS 

— Frapolo, 365. — PiperoUo, 369. — Excellent fooling, 371. — The 
Court Secret, a dramatic romance, 372. — Its plot, built upon a 
double imposture, 372. — Well knit, 377. — A combination of sus- 
pense and of surprise, 378. — The characterization not notable, 378. 
— Chapter summary, 379. — Summary, third dramatic period: Shir- 
ley has become thoroughly romantic, 380. 

Chapter XIX. Conclusion. 

The threefold purpose of this study, 382. — The limitation of the 
field, 382. — (I) Chronology, 384. — Verification of data, 384. — 
Elimination of imaginative touches, 384. — Reexamination of the 
constructive reasoning of previous biographers, 384. — The result: a 
chronology typographically more accurate and logically more cir- 
cumspect than any previously proposed, 385. — Shirley's private life, 
385. — The three hypotheses concerning Shirley's parentage dis- 
proved, 385. — His alleged quarrel with the Queen's men proved 
mythical, 385. — Our certain knowledge limited to the record of his 
christening, in the register of St. Mary Woolchurch; of his school- 
ing, in the probation register of Merchant Taylors' School; of the 
christening of his son Mathias, in the register of St. Giles Cripple- 
gate; of his will, preserved at Somerset House; and of his burial, 
recorded in the register of St. Giles in the Fields, 385-386. — Shir- 
ley's life as dramatist, 386. — Data available in Herbert's office- 
book, the Stationers' Register, title-pages, and the lists appended to 
The Maid's Revenge and The Cardinal, 386. — The identity of The 
Politique Father with The Brothers of 1652, established by Nissen's 
argument and by Moseley's catalogue, 387. — Our chronolog}^ 
therefore, practically complete. — (II) The Course of Shirley's 
Development as a Dramatist, 387. — Shirley began his career as a 
follower of the realistic school of Jonson and of Fletcher, 388. — In 
his second period, the proportion of realistic to romantic plays is 
reversed, 388. — In his final period, his work is overwhelmingly 
romantic, 389. — Tabular statement, 390. — In short, from Jonsonian 
and Fletcherian comedy of manners and of humors, Shirley passed 
to Fletcherian and Shaksperean romantic comedy, dramatic ro- 
mance, and romantic tragedy, 391. — (III) The Characteristics 
OF Shirley's Plays, 391. — Shirley's realistic plays, 391. — His pic- 
tures of the life of court and town, 391. — His characters of humor, 
392. — Shirley's romantic plays, 393. — His dramatic romances, 393. 
— His romantic comedies, 394. — His romantic tragedies, 395. — 
Summary, 396. — Quotation from Edward Phillips, 397. 



n^'^n 



CONTENTS 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 

PART I. The Published Works of James Shirley, Chrono- 
logically Arranged, 401. 

PART II. Works Containing References to Shirley, Ar- 
ranged Alphabetically by Authors, 422. 



l^^l 



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 



James Shirley, Dramatist, from the por- 
trait in the Bodleian Library at Oxford . Frontispiece ^.. 

Record of the Baptism of "James the sonne of 
James Sharlie," from the Register of St. 
Mary Woolchurch, September 7, 1596 . . Facing page 17 ^-^ 

Record of James Shirley in the Fifth Form of 
Merchant Taylors' School, from the Reg- 
ister of the School's Probation, September 
II, 1610 Facing page 21 '^ 

James Shirley, from the engraving by W. 

Marshall, 1646 Facing page 139. 

James Shirley, G. Phenik pinx : R. Gaywood 

fecit 1658 Facing page i<,i^^ 

Record of the Burial of "Mr. James Sherley" 
and of "Mris. Frances Sherley his wife," 
from the Register of St. Giles in the Fields, 
October 29, 1666 Facing page 162 ^^ 



PART I 
THE LIFE OF SHIRLEY 



CHAPTER I 
SHIRLEY'S PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

1596-1625 

A MONG the dramatists of the reign of Charles 
/% the First, James Shirley stands preeminent: 
X m the last of the Elizabethans, the prophet of 
the Restoration. Born in the spacious times of great 
Elizabeth, in the very year in which Raleigh and 
Lord Howard of Effingham took and sacked Cadiz; 
school-boy, university man, and teacher in the reign 
of James the First; favorite dramatist of the court of 
Charles, friend of the king and champion of the 
queen; follower of the Duke of Newcastle in the 
Civil War; and then, through the Protectorate and 
the first six years of the reign of Charles the Second, 
schoolmaster again and miscellaneous writer: James 
Shirley, in the course of three score years and ten, 
embodied in himself as man and dramatist something 
of the chivalric spirit of the Elizabethans, something 
of the impetuous loyalty of the Cavaliers, some- 
thing of the fine patience of the great poet of the 
Puritans, and something of that licentiousness of 
thought and speech characteristic of the entire seven- 

1:33 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

teenth century though more often ascribed merely to 
the courtiers and dramatists of the Restoration. 

As a lover of Shakspere, as a student of Lope de 
Vega, as a reviser of plays by Chapman and by 
Fletcher, as an avowed disciple of Ben Jonson, Shir- 
ley brought to his profession a taste genuinely catho- 
lic and a technique highly developed. What part he 
played in the dramatic activities of his time, we may 
learn by reading his record for a single twelvemonth. 
In the spring of 1633, when William Prynne, the 
Puritan fanatic, virulently assailed the queen and her 
ladies for participating in a play at court, Shirley, as 
^'Servant to her Majesty," offered the retort discour- 
teous in his ironical dedication to The Bird in a Cage. 
In the autumn of that year, Shirley was the author of 
the play presented in honor of the king's birthday— 
the romantic tragicomedy. The Young Admiral. In 
the same year, when Charles desired the dramatiza- 
tion of a favorite story, he, through his Master of the 
Revels, gave the plot to Shirley. On this plot, Shirley 
wrote The Gamester^ which was acted at court on 
February 6, 1633/4. "The King," wrote Sir Henry 
Herbert, "sayd it was the best play he had seen for 
seven years." In that same February of 1633/4, seven 
months before the youthful Milton produced his 
masque of Comus for the Earl of Bridgewater, Shir- 
ley provided another masque. The Triumph of 

[43 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

Peace, for the Inns of Court to present before the 
king. For Milton's masque, Lawes composed the 
music, and Inigo Jones designed the scenery. For 
Shirley's masque, the same composer and artist were 
engaged; and upon its presentation, the Inns of Court 
expended twenty thousand pounds. 

Such was Shirley's record for a single year: look 
now at his achievement as a whole. In the eighteen 
years of his career as dramatist, Shirley produced 
thirty-one plays that have survived. Of these, twelve 
are pictures of London life and manners— a connect- 
ing link between the plays of Jonson and those of 
Wycherley and Congreve. One, his earliest, is a 
mixture of the realistic and the romantic styles. The 
other eighteen are romantic plays — dramatic ro- 
mance, romantic comedy, and romantic tragedy- 
plays that recall the work of Fletcher, of Webster, 
and of Shakspere, and that lead onward to the trage- 
dies and heroic plays of Dryden and of Otway. Well 
might Milton's nephew, Edward Phillips, writing 
nine years after Shirley's death, declare that, in dra- 
matic poesy, "he hath written both very much, and 
for the most part with that felicity that by some he 
is accounted little inferior to Fletcher himself." 
Well might he call Shirley "a just pretender to more 
than the meanest place among English poets." 

In the present study of the life and works of Shir- 

Is-} 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ley, the endeavor is threefold: first, to examine the 
little that we know of Shirley's life, to determine, 
fact by fact, the value of the evidence, and, on a basis 
of this critical examination, to construct a chronology 
more accurate than has been hitherto available ; sec- 
ond, on a basis of this revised chronology, to restudy 
the dramatic works of Shirley, in order to determine, 
if possible, the course of his development as a dram- 
atist; and, third, from this same examination of the 
plays, to determine the distinctive characteristics of 
his dramatic works. To the second and third of these 
endeavors will be devoted the fourteen chapters of 
Part II ; to the first, the five chapters of Part I. 

Concerning the events of Shirley's life, which con- 
stitute our subject in Part I, the principal accounts 
are those of Anthony a Wood in his AthencB Oxonien- 
ses, 1 69 1-2, of Dyce in 1833, and, more recently, of 
Fleay, of Ward, and of Nissen. Gosse, Swinburne, 
Schelling, Neilson, and Schipper have likewise writ- 
ten upon Shirley; but their contributions have been 
primarily critical rather than biographical. Of the 
five accounts of Shirley's life, that by Wood is char- 
acterized by grave omissions, by assertions based 
seemingly on hearsay and now incapable of verifica- 
tion, and by at least one conspicuous mistake— the age 
of the dramatist at death ; yet this record is, on many 
points, our sole "authority," and has been all but uni- 

1:63 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

versally accepted. The account by Dyce is more 
scholarly and more complete, and yet leaves much to 
be desired. Of the articles by Fleay, Ward, and Nis- 
sen, each has its excellences, and each embodies, in 
one department or another, the results of laborious 
research. Each, however, if I may venture an opin- 
ion, has here and there been over-positive on matters 
not yet certain ; each has contributed something to the 
correction of its predecessors ; and yet even the latest, 
that of Nissen, not only accepts the unsupported state- 
ments of Wood without a scruple but even cites that 
delightfully imaginative paraphrase, Shiels's Cib- 
ber's Lives of the Poets, 1753, as an authority worthy 
of credence with the best. My task, therefore, in 
preparing a new account of Shirley's life, is not to 
add new facts, but rather to reexamine the evidence, 
and to discriminate between what has been proved 
and what has not. I shall not everywhere reject the 
accepted facts of Shirley's life merely because the 
evidence for their truth is lacking ; but I shall at least 
give warning in such cases that I base my statement 
upon tradition, and on nothing more. 

My discussion of the life— as distinguished from 
the works— of Shirley may be best presented under 
five heads ; and to each I shall devote a chapter. The 
first chapter, which I have entitled Shirley's Pre- 
dramatic Period, will recount the events of his career 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

from his birth in 1596 to the licensing of his first play 
in 1625 ; the second, Shirley's First Dramatic Period, 
his career thence to the licensing of The Ball, No- 
vember 16, 1632; the third, Shirley's Second Dra- 
matic Period, from the supposed date of the acting 
of hh Arcadia, November 19, 1632, to his departure 
for Ireland in the spring of 1635/6; the fourth, 
thence to the closing of the theaters in 1642, his Third 
Dramatic Period; and the fifth chapter, Shirley's 
Post-dramatic Period, from the closing of the the- 
aters to his death in 1666. The basis of my division 
into periods will be more evident when, in Part II, 
we examine the course of Shirley's development as a 
dramatist. 

Concerning the parentage of James Shirley, pre- 
vious biographers have offered nothing that bears 
examination. Indeed, of the three hypotheses they 
have advanced, each can be all but conclusively re- 
futed. The first of these— that our dramatist was of 
the Warwickshire family of the same name — was one 
of two proposed by Anthony a Wood: "James Shir- 
ley," he says, "the most noted drammatick Poet of his 
time, . . . was descended from the Shirleys of Sussex 
or Warwickshire, as by his Arms (if he had right 
to them) painted over his picture hanging in the 
School-gallery at Oxon, appears."^ The arms in the 

^ Wood, 1691-1692, II, 260; cf. 1817, III, 737. 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

Oxford portrait are indeed the arms of the Shirleys 
of Warwickshire : "Paly of six or and azure, a quarter 
ermine."^ To be more explicit, they are the arms 
borne, in Shirley's time, by Sir George Shirley, Bart, 
lord of Eatington (1559-1622); by his son. Sir 
Henry Shirley, Bart., lord of Eatington (1588- 
1633/4) 5 ^^d then, successively, by the two sons of 
Sir Henry: Sir Charles Shirley, Bart. (1623-1646), 
and Sir Robert Shirley, Bart. (1629-1656).^ Two 
circumstances, moreover, might support the supposi- 
tion that the dramatist was related to these Shirleys 
of Eatington, or Etindon, in County Warwick. In 
1632, he dedicated his comedy, Changes, or Love in 
a Maze, to "the right honorable the Lady Dorothy 
Shirley," wife of Sir Henry Shirley, Bart.^ In 1639, 
Thomas Bancroft included four doggerel lines to one 
James Shirley, presumably our dramatist, in the Two 

2 E. P. Shirley, Noble and Gentle Men of England, pp. 255, 254; 
cf. E. P. Shirley, Stemmata Shtrletana, 1841, pp. 13, 78, 102, etc. 

3 Ibid., p. 48. 

* Gifford, in the Gifford and Dyce edition of the works of Shirley, 
II, 271, note, appears to be incorrect in several of his statements con- 
cerning Lady Dorothy Shirley and her husband. According to E. P. 
Shirley, Stemmata Shirleiana, 1841, p. 48, the Lady Dorothy Dev- 
ereux, second daughter of Robert, second earl of Essex, married not 
Sir Robert Shirley, Bart., as Gifford says, but Sir Henry Shirley, Bart. 
The date of the wedding was not 161 5, as Gifford says, but was 
August I, 1616. Sir Robert Shirley, born 1629, was not her husband 
but her son. Moreover, she was not "probably a widow when these 
verses were addressed to her" in 1632; for Sir Robert did not die in 
February, 1632, as Gifford asserts, but on February 8, 1633/4. 

[193 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Bookes of Epigrammes that he dedicated to Sir 
Henry's successor, Sir Charles Shirley, Bart. Neither 
these dedications, however, nor the presence of a 
namesake's arms in the Bodleian portrait, can estab- 
lish James Shirley's claim to be included among the 
Warwick Shirleys. Even Wood, who first offered 
this hypothesis, qualified it with the words: "his Arms 
(if he had right to them) " ; and the worthy Oxonian 
would scarcely have expressed this doubt without 
good reason. E. P. Shirley, who gave much time 
and labor to establishing the pedigree of the Shirley 
family, "Lords of Nether Etindon in the County of 
Warwick," found no place in the family tree for 
James Shirley the dramatist. In the first edition of 
hh Stemmata Shirleiana, 1841, E. P. Shirley referred 
to "the poet, who, from the arms which he assumed, 
is supposed to have sprung from some younger 
branch of the house of Eatington";^ but in his en- 
larged edition, 1873, he changed his wording to 
"perhaps supposed himself to have sprung";^ and 
further on he wrote : "Of James Shirley the poet . . . 
there is no reason to believe that he belonged to the 
House of Ettington."^ So thorough were the re- 
searches of E. P. Shirley, that we should account his 
judgment practically conclusive. 

^ E. P. Shirley, Stemmata Shirleiana, 1 841, p. 92. 
^ Ibid.j 1873, p. 119. 
"^ Ibid., 1873, p. 339. 

1:10:1 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

A second hypothesis, that James Shirley was of the 
Shirley (or Sherley) family of Sussex, is no more 
tenable than the first, and yet it is not without sup- 
porters. They have even asserted his close kinship 
to Henry Sherley, author of The Martyred Soldier, 
As early as 1644, a news-letter quoted in Tierney's 
Arundel^ referred to "Master Henry Sherley, kins- 
man to Mr. James Sherley the playwright, and who 
did excell him in that faculty" ; and Wood, in 169 1-2, 
remarked: "I find one Henry Shirley, gent, author 
of a play called The Martyred Soldier, Lond. 
1638. qu. Which Henry I take to be brother or near 
kinsman to James." ^ Fleay inferred, "from the fact 
that Henry Shirley [who was murdered in 1627] 
preceded James by so many years, that he was his 
father and not his brother as has been generally con- 
jectured."^^ More interesting is the fact, unnoted, I 
believe, by previous biographers, that in the engrav- 
ing of James Shirley inscribed "G. Phenik pinx: R. 
Gaywood fecit 1658," the arms are differenced with 
a crescent— a mark of cadency which, according to 
Stemmata Shirleiana/^ was regularly borne by the 
Sherleys of Wiston in Sussex, Henry Sherley's fam- 

® Tierney's Arundel, I, 67, note a. See also Notes and Queries, 1st 
Ser., xii^ 26-27, July 14, 1885; and Hunter, Chorus Vatum Anglica- 
norum, iii, 417-422. 

® Wood, 1691-1692, II, 262; cf. 1817, III, 741. 

^^ Fleay, in Anglia, VIII, 414. 

^^ E. P. Shirley, Stemmata Shirleiana, 1841, pp. 179-224. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ily. If this engraving be, as some suppose, a modi- 
fication of the Bodleian portrait, the presence of the 
crescent may be indicative either of growing modesty 
in the aging dramatist or of greater honesty in the 
engraver; but it does not necessarily imply that Shir- 
ley was now asserting kinship with the Sussex Sher- 
leys. The crescent, difference of the second son,^^ 
was borne by the Sherleys of Wiston in Sussex be- 
cause they were descended from Ralph Sherley of 
Wiston, Esq. {ob. i t^io) ^ second son oi Ralph Shirley 
of Ettington, Esq. ;^^ but the crescent might be borne 
by the descendant of the second son of any other gen- 
eration. Nevertheless, just as the Bodleian portrait 
gives to James Shirley the arms that of right belonged 
to Sir Charles Shirley, Bart., lord of Eatington, and 
then to his brother and successor. Sir Robert, as 
sixth in descent from John Shirley, eldest son of 
Ralph Shirley, Esq., lord of Eatington;^* so the en- 
graving of 1658 gives to the dramatist the arms that 
of right had belonged to Henry Sherley, gent., author 
of The Martyred Soldier , as fifth in descent from the 
second son of the same Lord of Eatington. ^^ 

How unfounded was James Shirley's claim to kin- 

^2 Legh, Accedens of Armory, 1576, fols. loya-liob; Bossewell, 
Workes of Armoriej 1597, fol. lob. 

^^ E. P. Shirley, Stemmata Shirleiana, 1841, p. 180; 1873, p. 235. 
'^^ Ibid., 1841, pp. 30 and 48; 1873, pp. 39 and 61. 
'^^ Ibid., 1841, p. 180; 1873, p. 235. 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

ship with this Sussex branch, has been made evident 
by the researches of E. P. Shirley. In the second edi- 
tion of his Stemmata Shirleiana, he gives in detail the 
genealogy of the Sherleys^^ of Wiston in Sussex. In 
this he records the names of the sons and daughters 
of Sir Thomas Sherley the younger, among whom 
Henry Sherley, author of The Martyred Soldier, 
was the oldest to survive to manhood. This Henry 
Sherley, according to Harl. MSS. 4023, p. 122 B, was 
'^sirie sobole occisusf^ If this be true, Henry Sherley 
cannot have been James Shirley's father; if the list of 
the children of Sir Thomas be correct, Henry Sher- 
ley cannot have been James Shirley's brother.^^ In 
1855, E. P. Shirley published a long communication 
concerning the identity of Henry Sherley. With re- 
gard to Henry's alleged kinship to the greater dram- 
atist, he says: ''I wish I could include the more cele- 
brated poet James Shirley— the author of those noble 

^^ To base any argument upon the spelling of the name, would be 
unwise. It is true that the Sussex branch, according to E. P. Shirley 
{Stemmata Shirleiana, 1841, p. 179, note), generally spelled the name 
"Sherley," and that the dramatist usually spelled it "Shirley." But 
in this we find no perfect uniformity. The name is spelled with an 
"i" on most of his title-pages, in his will (if my transcript be accu- 
rate), and even in the engraving of 1658, "Jacobus Shirlaeus." On the 
other hand, the name is spelled "Sherley" in the probation register of 
Merchant Taylors' School; "Shurley" in the register of christenings 
of St. Giles without Cripplegate, February 26, 1624/5 >* "Shirly" (but 
never "Sherley") on a small minority of his title-pages; and "Sherley" 
in the burial record of St. Giles in the Fields, October 29, 1666. 

^■^ E. P. Shirley, Stemmata Shirleiana, 1841, pp. 207-208; 1873, pp. 
269-272. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

verses ^The glories of our birth and state'— also 
among the worthies of the family tree ; but the gene- 
alogy of the Shirleys of Sussex is so well ascertained 
that I fear this to be impossible." ^* 

A third hypothesis remains: the very natural as- 
sumption that James Shirley the dramatist, born in 
London and educated in a London school, was in 
some way related to that James Shirley of London, 
goldsmith, who was the financial agent of the Ply- 
mouth colony. Unfortunately for our hypothesis, 
however, the genealogy of this family also is well 
known— indeed, a matter of contemporary official 
record. In the Visitation of London for the years 
1633, 1634, and 1635, ^^ we find the pedigrees of John 
Sherley of London, goldsmith, and of his brother, 
James Sherley of London, goldsmith, second and third 
sons respectively of Robert Sherley of Wistonson and 
of London, gentleman, who was son of Rafe or Ralph 
Sherley of Wistonson, Cheshire. These pedigrees 
name the children of both John and James, and men- 
tion a James among the sons of each; but they forbid 
our identifying the dramatist with any James belong- 

^^ Notes and Queries, 1st Ser., xii, 27; July 14, 1855. 

"^^ Publications of the Harleian Society, xvii: The Visitation of 
London, Anno Domini 1633, 1634, and 1635. Made by Sr. Henry 
St. George, Kt., Richmond Herald, and Deputy and Marshal to Sr. 
Richard St. George, Kt., Clarencieux King of Arms. Vol. II. Edited 
by Joseph Jackson Howard, LL.D., F.S.A. London, 1883, pp. 235- 
236. 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

ing to this London family. Our dramatist cannot be 
identical with James Sherley, goldsmith, for the will 
of the dramatist names a list of children that in no 
wise agrees with those of the goldsmith as recorded 
in the Visitation. Our dramatist cannot be identical 
with either James the son or James the nephew of the 
goldsmith ; for neither could have been born as early 
as 1596. Moreover, the arms of this family as exem- 
plified to the goldsmith's father, Robert Sherley of 
London, gentleman, by Sir William Segar, Septem- 
ber 10, 1609, are not the arms used by James Shirley 
the dramatist, but "Gules, a chevron cheeky argent 
and sable between three fleurs-de-lis or; crest, on a 
torse, three arrows or, entwined with a wreath vert."^^ 
"These bearings," says E. P. Shirley, "if there is any 
use or meaning in the science of heraldry, point to a 
totally different origin for this London family." ^^ 

In short, if we are to consider only the three hy- 
potheses proposed by previous biographers, we find 
no trace of Shirley's parentage. In the genealogies of 
the Shirleys of Warwick, of the Sherleys of Sussex, 
and of the Sherleys who were London goldsmiths, 
our dramatist receives no place. 

But why confine ourselves to these hypotheses? 
Why not seek our dramatist (despite his arms) out- 

^^ I bid. J and Stemmata Shirleiana, 1873, p. 335. 
*^ Stemmata Shirleiana, 1873, p. 335. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

side the three lines known to heraldry? Once we ad- 
mit this possibility, we come immediately to a fourth 
hypothesis : an hypothesis not before proposed by any 
scholar, and yet, in view of the evidence extant, an 
hypothesis both obvious and satisfying. Two clues 
we have. The first is Wood's statement concerning 
the place of Shirley's birth. ''James Shirley, the most 
noted drammatick Poet of his time," says Wood, "did 
make his first entry on the stage of this transitory 
world, in or near, the Parish of S. Mary Wool- 
church (where the Stocks market now is) within the 
City of London."^^ ''So," adds Wood in a foot-note, 
"I have been informed by his Son, the Butler of Fur- 
nivals inn, in Holbourn, near London. "^^ Our sec- 
ond clue concerns the date of Shirley's birth : a series 
of statements, strangely inconsistent, in the probation 
register of Merchant Taylors' School. In the tables 
of the "Schooles Probation" for December ii, 1608, 
March 11, 1609, and September 11, 1609, the date of 
Shirley's "nativitie" is set down merely as "1596 
Sept." In the seven tables following, from Decem- 
ber II, 1609, to December 11, 161 1, inclusive, the 
date is written "1596 Sept. 13." In the final table, 
March 11, 1612, the date becomes "1596 Sept. 18." 
As Dyce remarked in his account of Shirley, 

22 Wood, 1691-1692, II, 260; cf. 1817, III, 737. 
2^ Ibid. J note. 







^ r^ • ■ — - ^r"^ F _^ V 












fO 



^/»*-'^flUjn. ^^H^n. 






'2 ^€<^cU^ ^^rr^o^QcBa^ 










an tm 






'J!^^ 






'f^r4$,f^^£r''-^-^"^h'^ ^^M^MM 






A 



/7t 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

"Whether the latter date was a correction of the for- 
mer, or a slip of the pen, cannot be discovered."^* 

Such are our two clues: as to the place of Shirley's 
birth, a statement at once definite and well substan- 
tiated; as to the date, three statements of unknown 
authority, incomplete or contradictory, but agreeing 
upon the month and year. If, from this evidence, we 
turn now to the parish records of St. Mary Wool- 
church, we find, indeed, no record of a James Shirley 
born either on the thirteenth or the eighteenth of 
September, 1596; but we do find, in the record of 
baptisms for that year, the following entry: 

James the sonne of James Sharlle was baptized the 
seventh of September.^^ 

Who was this "James the sonne of James Sharlie" 

2* Dyce, in Works, I, iii, note. For my transcripts from this entry- 
book, I am indebted to the courtesy of the present officers of Mer- 
chant Taylors' School and to the accuracy of Misses Stokes & Cox, 
record agents, London. Concerning the original records, they report: 
"The volumes of this Register were rebound this year [191 1], but it 
contains no frontispiece or title-page. The pages whence references 
were taken were all in good state of preservation, the writing good 
and clear, and all figures distinctly made. Unfortunately, several gaps 
occur throughout, owing to missing pages." 

2^ A photograph of the page of the parish record on which appears 
this entry, is among my illustrations. Cf. p. 310 of the published 
Transcript of the United Parishes of S. Mary Woolnoth and S. Mary 
Woolchurch Haiu, in the City of London . . . 1886 . . . For the 
references to William Sharlie and his family, see Ibid., pp. Iviii, 300, 
301, 302, 370, 371, 372, 378, 379; to Thomas and his family. Ibid., pp. 
308, 347. 379; to James and his family. Ibid., pp. 310, 311, 312, 313, 
383, 384, and 388. 

Civ: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

baptized in the same parish and in the very month in 
which our James Shirley is alleged to have been 
born? An analysis of the entries that contain the 
family name enables us to present with reasonable 
assurance his genealogy. 

The first of the name to be mentioned in the parish 
records is one William Sharlye, Sharley, Shorley, or 
Sharlie — seemingly the grandfather of "James son 
of James." To him and to his wife and children ap- 
parently refer eleven entries. On November 30, 
1564, was buried an unnamed "childe of William 
Sharlie." On April 25, 1566, was baptized "Thomas, 
son of William Shorley"; on January 18, 1567/8, 
"James, son of William Sharlie"; and on July 3, 
1569, "Brigit, daughter of William Sharlie." On 
July 19 of the same year was buried "Brigit, daugh- 
ter of William Sharlie." On November 20, 1571, 
was baptized "Elizabeth, daughter of William Shar- 
lie"; and on November 13, 1573, "Elizabeth, daugh- 
ter of William Sharlie," was buried. In the list of 
churchwardens of the parish, there appears the dou- 
ble entry: "1576. John Newman— William Sharlye. 
1577. William Sharley— John Maskall." And fin- 
ally, with honorable prefix, were buried, February 21, 
1592/3, "Mr. William Sharlie," and, on March. i, 
1593/4^ "Mistris Sharley, Widoe." 

To Thomas, the elder son of William, and to his 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

family, seemingly refer the entries following: On 
June 29, 1590, was baptized "Elizabeth, daughter of 
Thomas Sharlie"; and on September 2, 1594, "Eliza- 
beth, daughter of Thomas Sharley," was buried. On 
January 21, 1598/9, were married "Thomas Sherle 
and Elizabeth Lacke." 

Of more immediate interest is the record of Wil- 
liam's second son, James, and of his family. First 
among his children — presumably the future drama- 
tist—was "James, son of James Sharlie," baptized 
September 7, 1596. Next comes "Ellin, daughter of 
James Sharlie," baptized May i, 1598. Third comes 
"Elizabeth, daughter of James Sharloe," baptized 
July 15, 1599. The fourth is "William, son of James 
Sharlie," baptized December 27, 1601, and presum- 
ably identical with the "William Sharlie" of un- 
named parentage who was buried September 12, 
1603. The fifth is "Marie, daughter of James Shar- 
lie," baptized March 4, 1603/4, ^^d buried Septem- 
ber 18, 1606. Finally, on June 2, 16 17, was buried 
"Mr. James Sharlie." 

Such, for three generations, is the family into 
which was born "James, son of James Sharlie," bap- 
tized in St. Mary Woolchurch, September 7, 1596. 
Was this the James Shirley, Dramatist, who, accord- 
ing to the statement of his son to Wood, was born in 
St. Mary Woolchurch, and who, according to the 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

register of Merchant Taylors' School, was born either 
on the thirteenth or the eighteenth of September, 
1596 — six days or eleven days, be it noted, subsequent 
to the date of this baptismal record? Absolute cer- 
tainty in such a case we must not claim; but, in view 
of the agreement as to place and of the approximate 
agreement as to date, we may, until further evidence 
appears, account this explanation all but certain: that 
the "James, son of James Sharlie" baptized in St. 
Mary Woolchurch, September 7, 1596, was none 
other than the future dramatist. 

Concerning Shirley's schooling, we have the main 
facts. Wood asserts that he was '^educated in Gram- 
mar learning in Merchant Taylors School" ;^^ and 
the records of the school confirm this statement. The 
eleven tables just cited, concur in the statement that 
he was admitted to the school October 4, 1608. At 
the "probation and triall of the whole school" made 
by the master and three ushers December 11, 1608, 
Shirley stood thirteenth in the fourth form; by 
March he was in the ninth place; and by September, 
in the seventh. Promoted to the fifth form, he fell 
temporarily to fifteenth place; but in the tables for 
September 11, 1610, December 11, 1610, and March 
II, 161 1, he stood first in his form. In the sixth form, 
he stood tenth in September and December, 161 1; 

26 Wood, 1691-1692, II, 260; cf. 1817, III, 737. 




oOO o Q fi g 00 oo ~ OQOO:: o 




J 

^ 






^ 









^ '»^ 






Hi 



"^ur^ 









^ 
^ 






6 'MI«4*8'§*fii:«iife'iM 

e^j V-. ^ -»« "^ »^ T- r* 

^ ^. -i.. ..-v>3.-..!>>=^=»i' --i 







^;i^ 









^i 



d). 









v» 



.\- 



'"^ 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

and eighth on March 1 1, 1612. For the probations of 
September and December, 161 2, the page is missing; 
and when the record resumes with the probation of 
March, 1613, the name of Shirley is not there. We 
may conclude with Dyce, however, that, ^'he left the 
school on the nth of June, [1612], the annual elec- 
tion day, when the ^upper boys' almost invariably 
depart." 2^ 

Of James Shirley's university career — if indeed he 
had one— we can state little with assurance ; but the 
account of Wood is interesting if not authoritative : 

Shirley . . . was . . . educated in Grammar learn- 
ing in Merchant Taylors School, and transplanted thence 
to S. Johns Coll., but in what condition he lived there, 
whether in that of a Servltour, Batler, or Commoner, I 
cannot yet find. At the same time Dr. Will Laud presid- 
ing that house, he had a very great affection for him, espe- 
cially for the pregnant parts that were visible in him, but 
then having a broad or large mole upon his left cheek, 
which some esteemed a deformity, that worthy Doctor 
would often tell him that he was an unfit Person to take 
the sacred function upon him, and should never have his 
consent so to do. Afterwards leaving this University 
without a degree, he went to Cambridge, where I presume 
he took those in Arts : so that soon after entring into holy 
Orders, he became a minister of God's word in, or near 
to, S. Albans in Hertfordshire.^^ 

27 Dyce, in Works, I, iv. 

28 Wood, 1691-1692, II, 260; cf. 1817, III, 737. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Whether these assertions of Wood, which have 
been received and elaborated by Shirley's biogra- 
phers to the present time, should be accepted in a 
critical study, is a matter open to debate. It would 
appear that Wood's statements may not have been 
based upon a first-hand knowledge; that much of the 
supplementary evidence is questionable or worse; 
and that no traces of Shirley's presence have been dis- 
covered in the records of either university. Under 
these circumstances, a detailed examination of the 
evidence is here appropriate. 

To Wood's assertion that Shirley was once a stu- 
dent of St. John's College, Oxford, it is objected, 
first, that no record of his presence has survived at 
the university. "I never remember," wrote Bliss, the 
editor of Wood's Athence, to Dyce, "to have had a 
longer, and certainlyneveramoreunsatisf actorysearch 
than in the present instance; for no entry whatever of 
James Shirley can I find, although I have looked over 
every book that can throw any light on such an admis- 
sion, if it ever took place. ... I have also had access 
to a list of the members of St. John's College, actually 
in Laud^s own handwriting, and no such name oc- 
curs." ^^ Are we to accept Wood's assertions in the 
absence of official record? 

And, secondly, what witness supports Wood in de- 

*® Dyce, in Works^ I, v, note. 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

daring Shirley an Oxonian? One Shiels, who pub- 
lished in 1753 that charming work of fiction, Cib- 
ber's Lives of the Poets. Let whoever thinks of 
Shiels as an "authority," compare his account of 
Shirley ^^ line for line with that of Wood. If ever 
there was a cheerful plagiarist, not lacking in imagi- 
nation, Shiels was the man. And yet, his paraphrase 
of Wood has recently been cited ^^ as if to corroborate 
Wood's statements. 

But the portrait of Shirley — does not its presence 
in the Bodleian Gallery at Oxford prove that Shirley 
was once a student there? Not necessarily. Indeed, 
we might with equal reason argue — if we had no 
other clue— that the story that Shirley was once an 
Oxford student was invented to account for the pres- 
ence of the picture. 

And finally, it might even be objected that Wood 
himself is a witness neither reliable nor competent: 
that Wood — writing an Athence Oxontenses — must 
claim Shirley as a sometime Oxford man — even upon 
no better evidence than the presence of the portrait in 
the Bodleian Gallery— or must omit from his list of 
notables "the most noted dramatic poet of his time" ; 
and that Wood, writing in 169 1-2 concerning the 
events of 161 2-1 8, was scarcely in a position, even 
had he the desire, to set forth the truth. 

^^ Gibber, 1753, 11, 26-32. ^^ Nissen, pp. 7-8. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The second half of this objection will bear elabo- 
ration. Was Wood in a position to know the facts 
concerning Shirley's alleged career at Oxford? It is 
possible, of course, that he had access to university 
records that no more exist; but his own words, we 
must admit, give precisely the opposite impression. 
He gives no dates ; he "cannot yet find'' whether Shir- 
ley lived at Oxford as "Servitour, Batler, or Com- 
moner" ; he is specific only with respect to the anec- 
dote of the mole and Dr. Laud, and such an anecdote 
might have originated an)rwhere. Had Wood ever 
met our dramatist? Not when Shirley was in Oxford 
(if he ever was) : for Shirley left Merchant Taylors' 
School in 1612; and Wood was not born until De- 
cember 17, 1632.^^ Nor had Wood met our dramatist 
in London: for Shirley died in 1666; and Wood's 
first visit to London, as he himself expressly says, was 
made in June, 1667.^^ 

And yet, notwithstanding these objections, I incline 
to the opinion that Wood's statements may be substan- 
tially correct. He had been born in Oxford, and had 
there spent nearly his entire life. Who, then, so well 
equipped as Wood accurately to record the tradi- 
tions of the university? Wood, by his own statement, 
had been "informed" of Shirley's birthplace by Shir- 

32 Wood's autobiography in The Lives of . . , Leland . . . Hearne 
and . . . Wood . . . Vol. 11. Oxford . . . MDCCLXXIL p. 2. 
23 Ibid., p. 206. 

1:243 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

ley's son, "the Butler of Furnivals inn, in Holbourn, 
near London." May he not have been "informed" 
by the same son, of Shirley's university career? The 
bare fact that Bliss could find no record of Shirley 
at Oxford University does not prove that such a rec- 
ord did not once exist. As for Shiels's testimony, it 
can affect the truth no more one way than the other. 
If Shirley made but a brief stay at the university, it is 
not surprising that Wood could give no positive de- 
tails; but as to the mere fact of Shirley's presence. 
Wood would be likely to know the truth, and would 
scarcely dare to risk a falsehood in a case in which, 
after all, he had so little to gain and was so liable to 
detection. In the absence of official record— espe- 
cially in this instance, in which the records appear to 
be extant— we must be cautious in accepting Wood; 
nevertheless, that Shirley was for a time a student at 
St. John's College, Oxford, is at least possible. 

As for Wood's other assertion, that Shirley was 
ultimately a resident at Cambridge, its truth is rather 
more than possible. Indeed, the witnesses are even 
agreed upon his college and, approximately, upon 
the year of his degree. The year, moreover, tallies 
well with the date of his leaving Merchant Taylors' 
School. 

Of the evidence for Shirley's residence at Cam- 
bridge—as of the evidence for his residence at Ox- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ford— much is open to objection. Wood himself is 
especially indefinite : "Afterwards, leaving this Uni- 
versity [Oxford] without a degree, he went to Cam- 
bridge where I presume he took those in Arts." Even 
Wood, be it noted, merely "presumes" that Shirley 
took degrees. 

In elaboration and support of Wood, Dyce offers 
two pieces of evidence, neither of which, if isolated, 
will bear examination. The first of these is an alleged 
transcript of a title-page quoted in Censura Literaria 
"from a MS. note to Astle's copy of Wood's Athence'' 
as follows: ^^Eccho^ or the Infortunate Lovers, a 
poem, by James Sherley, Cant, in Art. Bacc. Lond. 
1618. 8vo. Primum hunc Arethusa mihi concede 
laborem.^^^^ This transcript follows Wood in ascrib- 
ing Shirley's baccalaureate degree to Cambridge, and 
includes a date by which Shirley might possibly have 
achieved the honor. But will the transcript bear 
examination? Do not the order and content of this 
title-page render it an object of suspicion? Why 
should the motto stand below the date? Why should 
the abbreviation "8vo." stand amidst the title? If the 
transcriber took such liberties as these, why may he 
not have inserted the ^^Cant. in Art. Bacc.'^ upon his 
own authority — or perhaps on the authority of 

3* Dyce, in Works, I, vi, quoting Brydges, Censura Literaria, II, 381, 
ed. 1815. The edition of 1806 gives the passage as 11, 382. 

1:26] 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

Wood? In the Stationers' Register, moreover, the 
entry for this book runs thus: "4 Januarij 1617 [i.e. 
1617/18]. Ecc\^h^o and Narcissus the 2 vnfortunate 
Louers written by Jeames Sherley."^^ In view of all 
these uncertainties, do Dyce and his modern follow- 
ers do well to offer as proof of Shirley's university 
degree, this note in manuscript written no one knows 
by whom or when? Even were the transcript self- 
consistent, why should its anonymous testimony be 
accepted? 

As a further proof that Shirley received a bacca- 
laureate degree from Cambridge, Dyce offers a 
manuscript addition written upon the fly-leaf of a 
copy of LacrymcB Cantabrigienses, 16 19, in the pos- 
session of one David Laing of Edinburgh, and by him 
communicated to Dyce.^^ This addition consists of 
verses and an epitaph, signed ^^Flens post posuit Jac. 
Shirley, AuL Gather, in Art. Bac.^^ A portion of 
these verses Shirley elsewhere acknowledged as his 
own; but the value of the alleged signature as proof 
of Shirley's academic honors depends upon who put 
it in this book, and when. Without further informa- 
tion, its evidence is worthless. 

Dyce's third witness, fortunately for Wood, is more 
reliable : a "memorandum in the hand-writing of the 

3^ Stationers' Register, ed. Arber, III, 286. 
^' Works, VI, 514-515, note. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

accurate Dr. Farmer" ^"^ in Dyce's copy of Shirley's 
Poems, 1646: "James Shirley, B. A., Cath. Hall, 
1619."^^ If we grant— as perhaps we should not 
grant— that Dyce was correct in assuming this note to 
be by Farmer, we have here the testimony of the man 
to whose favorable mention of Shirley in An Essay 
on the Learning of Shakspere, ijtj^ Dyce^^ and 
Ward^^ attribute the revival of Shirley's reputation 
as a dramatist. "What was Dr. Farmer's authority 
for the memorandum," says Dyce, "I cannot dis- 
cover." ^^ Were we relying wholly on the evidence 
of "the accurate Dr. Farmer," this admission would 
be fatal; but as Dr. Farmer's testimony is but supple- 
mentary, we may content ourselves with the possibil- 
ity that Farmer, as principal librarian of Cambridge 
University, had access to sources of information now 
unknown. 

The best evidence that Wood spoke truly concern- 
ing Shirley's connection with Cambridge University, 
occurs in the thirteenth epigram in the first book of 
Two Bookes of Epigrammes and Epitaphs . . . Writ- 
ten By Thomas Bancroft . . . l6jQ: 

^■^ Dyce, in Works, i, vi. 
28 Ibid. 
39 Ibid., I, xi. 

*^ Ward, in Dictionary of National Biography, Lii, 129, and in Eng- 
lish Dramatic Literature, III, 95. 
*^ Dyce, in Works, I, vi, note. 

1:283 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 
TO IAME[S] SHIRLEY 

lames, thou and I did spend some precious yeeres 
At Katherine-Hall ; since when, we sometimes f eele 

In our poetick braines, (as plaine appeares) 

A whirling tricke, then caught from Katherine's 
wheele.^^ 

Here at last we have passably good evidence in sup- 
port of Wood; for that two James Shirleys of the 
period were possessed of ^'poetick braines" is scarcely 
possible. 

If to this explicit statement of the epigrammatist, 
we add the fact that Shirley, later in life, was the 
author of a Latin grammar, we need neither the 
anonymous insertions in Astle's copy of Wood's 
Athence and Laing's copy of Lacrymce Cantabrigi- 
ensesj nor the "memorandum in the hand-writing of 
the accurate Dr. Farmer," to prove that James Shir- 
ley "did spend some precious yeeres at Katherine- 
Hall." True it is, that Shirley's name appears no- 
where in the records of that college; but in this case, 
unlike that of St. John's College, Oxford, the omis- 
sion is easily explained : according to a letter quoted 
by Dyce, "the dates in the Admission and Commons' 
Books at Catherine Hall go no farther back than the 
year 1642."^^ In view, therefore, of the testimony of 

*2 Cf. Dyce, in Works, i, v, and note. 
*^ Ibid., I, v-vi, note. 

C293 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Bancroft's epigram, and of the absence of all evidence 
to the contrary, we may conclude that Wood's asser- 
tion concerning Shirley's residence at Cambridge is 
highly probable. 

Whether, as Wood "presumes," Shirley took de- 
grees at Cambridge, is another question; and the fact 
that Shirley on no title-page extant makes use of a 
degree, renders this question doubly pointed. Fleay, 
to be sure, accepting the accuracy of the manuscript 
note in Astle's copy of Wood's Athence, insists that on 
January 4, 1617/18, the date when EccAo and Narcis- 
sus was entered in the Stationers' Register,^^ Shirley 
was already "B.A."^^ But of the title-page noted in 
Astle's volume, no original exists ; and we have seen 
reason to believe that the words ''Cant, in Art. Bacd* 
may be an insertion of the transcriber. Probably 
much more reliable is the "memorandum in the hand- 
writing of the accurate Dr. Farmer": "James Shir- 
ley, B. A., Cath. Hall, 1619."^^ But precisely how 
reliable this is, we are now unable to discover. If, 
as we believe, the "Mr. James Sharlie" who was 
buried on June 2, 1617, was the father of the future 
dramatist, then it is not impossible that the death of 
the father may have prevented the graduation of the 



** S. R., ed. Arber, iii, 286. 
*^ Fleay, in Anglia, Vlll, 405. 
*^ Dyce, in Works j i, vi. 



[303 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

son. In short, the question whether Shirley actually 
received even a baccalaureate degree cannot with cer- 
tainty be answered. 

I conclude then, with respect to Shirley's alleged 
university career: (i) that, notwithstanding the ab- 
sence of Shirley's name from the extant records of 
St. John's College, Oxford, his residence there is, in 
view of the testimony of Wood, a possibility; (2) 
that, in view of Wood's testimony and of the explicit 
statement of the Bancroft epigram, Shirley's resi- 
dence at Catherine Hall, Cambridge, is highly 
probable; but (3) that until more certain evidence 
appears, we shall do well to avoid saying that Shirley 
did or did not receive degrees in arts. 

The strongest evidence, however, of James Shirley's 
university training, is to be found not in these fugitive 
documents but in his subsequent career and in his 
works. 

For the five or six years from Shirley's supposed 
departure from the university to his appearance as a 
London playwright, we know of Shirley chiefly from 
the account of Wood : 

Soon after entring into holy Orders, he became a Min- 
ister of God's word in, or near to, S. Albans in Hertford- 
shire. But being then unsetled in his mind, he changed 
his Religion for that of Rome, left his Living, and taught 
a Grammar School in the said Town of S. Alban; which 

DO 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

employment also he finding uneasie to him, he retired to 
the Metropolis, lived In Greys Inn, and set up for a play- 
maker.^'' 

Of the accuracy of this account, we cannot judge. 
Concerning his ministry, we have no evidence ; con- 
cerning his conversion to the Roman Church, we 
have only what Dyce and other scholars have been 
pleased to discover in his dramatic works;** and con- 
cerning his term as pedagogue, we have merely the 
more or less unauthenticated statements contained in 
various histories of Hertfordshire. Of these, the 
most specific account is that contributed by Leach to 
Page's Victoria History of the County of Hertford- 
shire: 

In January, 1621, another distinguished author Illumi- 
nated the head mastership of St. Albans. This was James 
Shirley, known to fame, that Is, to the Dictionary of Na- 
tional Biography, as 'the last of the Elizabethan drama- 
tists.' ... At St. Albans the reign of Shirley, or Sherley 
as he was called, was signalized by a large expenditure 
on school building, the roof being renewed with no less 
than 624 lbs. of lead, and by the entry In the account 
books not merely of the number but of the names of the 
boys who paid entrance fees. Eight names were entered 
In 1622-3 In a most excellent copper-plate hand. On i 
July, 1624, Shirley left St. Albans, having become a 

*^ Wood, 1691-1692, II, 260-261; cf. 1817, III, 737. 
*^ Dyce, in Works, I, vii, note, and Gifford, Ibid., II, 52, note ; and 
Ward, English Dramatic Literature, III, 90, note. 

1:323 



THE PREDRAMATIC PERIOD 

Romanist, and . . . was followed in January, 1625, by 
John Westerman . . . appointed [Corporation Minutes^ 
at St. Albans i July, 1624.^9 

This record brings us at last to the year of Shirley's 
appearance as a London playwright; but before we 
enter upon the first period of his dramatic work, we 
may do well to summarize our conclusions concern- 
ing his predramatic period. That James Shirley the 
dramatist is to be identified with that "James the 
Sonne of James Sharlie" who was baptized in St. 
Mary Woolchurch on September 7, 1596, and that he 
was not immediately connected with the Shirleys of 
Warwick, the Sherleys of Sussex, or the Sherleys who 
were London goldsmiths, is all but certain. That he 
attended Merchant Taylors' School from 1608 to 
1 61 2 is definitely established. But that he went 
thence to St. John's College, Oxford, and from there 
to Catherine Hall, Cambridge; that he was gradu- 
ated B.A. from Catherine Hall, either in 1619, as 
Farmer holds, or some time before January 4, 1617/18, 
as Fleay would have it, or at some other time ; that 
he subsequently proceeded to his M.A., took orders, 
held a living in or near St. Albans, turned Romanist, 
and so became master of the grammar school of the 
same town, founded by charter of Edward VI : all 
this — unless perhaps that he "did spend some pre- 

*^ Page, The Victoria History of the County of Hertfordshire, II, 63. 

[33] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

cious yeeres at Katherine-Hall" and that he was for a 
time master of the St. Albans school — rests upon 
such vague authority that, although we may account 
it probable, we must not count it certain. In short, 
we believe that we know something of Shirley's 
parentage, birth, and early schooling; but of his 
youth and early manhood, we must be content, at 
present, to offer merely this: that the James Shirley 
who, about the year 1625, "retired to the Metropolis, 
lived in Greys inn, and set up for a playmaker," had 
somehow acquired a proper education, and could — 
or at least did— sign himself "James Shirley, gentle- 
man." 



[34] 



CHAPTER II 
SHIRLEY'S FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

1625-1632 

IN considering the career of Shirley from the 
licensing of his earliest play, Love Tricks, or 
The School of Complement, February 10, 
1624/5, to the licensing of The Ball, November 16, 
1632, we may best marshal our material under three 
heads: first, the circumstances of Shirley's arrival in 
London; second, the chronology of the licensing and 
publication of his works; and, third, the disputed 
identity of one of his early plays, The Brothers of 
1626. 

Of the date when Shirley took up his residence in 
London we have no definite evidence. Wood says 
merely that, finding the teaching of St. Albans gram- 
mar-school ''uneasie to him," Shirley ''retired to the 
Metropolis, lived in Greys inn, and set up for a play- 
maker."^ Whether he was in residence in London 
when, on Februaiy 10, 1624/5, his first play was 

^ Wood, 1691-1692, II, 261; cf. 1817, III, 737. 

1:353 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

licensed for presentation, we cannot prove ;^ but that 
he was living in town when, on February 26, his 
eldest son was baptized at St. Giles, Cripplegate, 
seems probable. In the record of christenings in the 
Register Book belonging to the parish church of St. 

2 Nissen, in his monograph on Shirley, attempts to place the date 
when Shirley took up his residence in London, in the period between 
February lo, 1624/5, and March 27, 1625. His argument in support 
of this conclusion runs as follows : 

"Sir Henry Herbert, the well-known Master of the Revels, licensed 
on February 10, 1625, the presentation of the play Love Tricks, with 
Complements, . . . That Shirley did not live in London at that time, 
may be inferred from a passage in the prologue to this play: 

" *. . . This play is 
The first fruits of a Muse that before this 
Never saluted audience, nor doth mean 
To swear himself a factor for the scene.' 

"This means," continues Nissen, "that our author, at the time of 
the composition and of the first presentation of the piece, had by no 
means the intention of devoting himself to the profession of writing 
plays; he probably, therefore, at that time still resided at St. Albans. 
In the following month, on March 27, 1625, King James I died. Shir- 
ley composed upon the death of James a poem that must have orig- 
inated soon afterwards. In it he relates that, on the news of the 
death of the monarch, he went to the king's palace and from there to 
Whitehall, where he saluted the new king, Charles. When the change 
of kings took place, he was, therefore, present in London. From this 
it follows that he transferred his home to the metropolis in the time 
between February 10 and March 27, 1625." (Nissen, pp. 8-9.) 

In certain of Nissen's conclusions, and still less in Nissen's argu- 
ments, I find myself unable to concur. I think it probable that Shirley 
was in London at the time of King James's death; but my belief is 
not strengthened by the argument just quoted. Surely the mere fact 
that Shirley, in his poem Upon the Death of King James {Works, VI, 
443), represents himself as doing what any London gentleman might 
think to do, is no proof that Shirley really did it. The poet's visit 
to the king's palace and to Whitehall may, of course, be actual; but I 
see no more necessity for accounting these lines an autobiographic 

D63 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Giles without Cripplegate, there occurs, under the 
date of February 26, 1624/5, the following entry: 

Mathias, sonne of Mr. James Shurley, gentleman.^ 

That ''Mr. James Shurley, gentleman," is James 
Shirley the dramatist, we need not question; for, in 
the will of the dramatist, which I shall later quote 
more fully, he refers to his ''eldest son, Mathias 
Shirley."^ Small is the chance that there should be 
in London at this time, more than one James Shirley, 
father of a Mathias. We know, at all events, that 

document than I do for accounting Shakspere's vituperative sonnets 
other than artificial exercises. But, granted that Shirley was "present 
in London" when the change of kings took place: does it follow that 
he had "transferred his home to the metropolis"? Was Shirley in- 
capable of being "present in London" merely as a visitor? Why, from 
Shirley's poem Upon the Death of King James, must one infer that 
Shirley had "transferred his home" ? 

And what of Nissen's argument that Shirley could not have come to 
London before February lo, 1624/5? What has Shirley's prologue 
to do with it? 

". . . This play is 
The first fruits of a Muse that before this 
Never saluted audience, nor doth mean 
To swear himself a factor for the scene." 

In the first place, why should we accept these lines as a true statement 
of the poet's purpose? Does not many a young dramatist adopt this 
very pose until he finds how the critics like his work? And secondly, 
even if we grant that this passage correctly represents the attitude 
of Shirley on the day the play was licensed, does it follow that Shirley, 
at that time, "still resided at St. Albans"? Could not all that the 
prologue says be true, even though Shirley had lived in London all his 
life? 

3 From a transcript of the original record, made for the purposes 
of this monograph. 

* Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Mico, folio 170. 

n373 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

James Shirley the goldsmith had no son so named. ^ 
If, then, our dramatist had an eldest son baptized at 
St. Giles, Cripplegate, on February 26, 1624/5, "^^Y 
we not infer that, on or before that date, James Shir- 
ley had taken up his residence in London?^ 

Whatever may have been the date of Shirley's en- 
trance into London, the years 1625 and 1626 saw the 
new dramatist well on his way to an assured compe- 
tence. His first play. Love Tricks, with Comple- 
ments, was licensed by Sir Henry Herbert, Master of 
the Revels, on February 10, 1624/5 ;^ and his "second 
birth," The Maid's Revenge, on February 9, 1625/6.^ 
A third play. The Wedding, the licensing of which 
is not on record, was presented, if Fleay's hypothesis 
be right, on May 31, 1626.^ A fourth, licensed as 
The Brothers, November 4, 1626,^^ has been gener- 
ally identified with the play published under the same 
title in 1652; but is probably to be identified neither 

^ Harleian Society: The Visitation of London, ii, 235-236. 

® "It is possible," writes Ward {English Dramatic Literature, III, 
90), "that an early marriage, which there are indications of his having 
contracted in or about 1623, may have added to his difficulties" — an 
early marriage at the immature age of twenty-seven! If this Mathias 
was Shirley's eldest son, Ward elsewhere writes {DNB., Lii, 126), 
"an early marriage may have played its part in the crisis of his life." 
"Ward halt es fiir moglich," says Nissen (p. 8), "dass er durch eine 
friihe Ehe . . . in hedrdngte Lage geraten sei"! 

'' Malone, Shakspere, 1821, III, 231, note. 

8 Ibid. 

® Fleay, in English Drama, II, 236, and in Anglia, Vlll, 405. 

^^ Malone, Shakspere, 1821, III, 231, note. 

D8] 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

with The Brothers of 1652 nor with the play printed 
by Bullen, in 1883, as Dicke of Devonshire}^ The 
identity of The Brothers I shall discuss at length in 
the latter portion of this chapter; the date of The 
Wedding I shall consider presently: first, however, 
it is fitting that I say a word as to the nature of the 
evidence by which we determine the dates when Shir- 
ley's plays were licensed for presentation. 

For the dates of the licensing of Shirley's plays, 
our ultimate source is the office-book of Sir Henry 
Herbert, Master of the Revels/^ This book, unfor- 
tunately, is not extant: we know it only through the 
extracts and summaries that Edmond Malone em- 
bodied in his edition of Shakspere, 1790 and 1821. 
As Malone did not make a complete transcript of the 

^^ In A Collection of Old English Plays . . . Vol. II, . . . London. 
J883. 

^2 Concerning this office-book, Malone wrote thus: "For the use of 
this ver}^ curious and valuable manuscript, I am indebted to Francis 
Ingram, of Ribbisford near Bewdley in Worcestershire, Esq., Deputy 
Remembrancer in the Court of Exchequer. It has lately been found 
in the same old chest which contained the manuscript Memoirs of 
Lord Herbert of Cherbury, from which Mr. Walpole about twenty 
years ago printed the Life of that nobleman, who was elder brother to 
Sir Henry Herbert." (Malone's Shakspere, 1821, ill, 57, note.) 
Again Malone writes: "The office-book of Sir Henry Herbert contains 
an account of almost every piece exhibited at any of the theatres 
from August, 1623, to the commencement of the rebellion in 1641, 
and many curious anecdotes relative to them, some of which I shall 
presently have occasion to quote. This valuable manuscript, having 
lain for a considerable time in a damp place, is unfortunately dam- 
aged, and in a very mouldering condition: however, no material part 
of it appears to have perished." (Ibid., 59, note.) 

D93 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

record, but contented himself with bringing together 
and tabulating the entries concerning the plays of 
any dramatist, his notes are liable both to error and 
to omission. We may accept as probably accurate 
the statement of Malone that he found in Herbert's 
office-book a record of the licensing of Love Tricks, 
The Maid^s Revenge, and The Brothers, on the dates 
mentioned; but we may not infer from the fact that 
Malone gives no record of The Wedding, that there- 
fore it was never licensed. Herbert may have entered 
the play, and Malone have neglected to transcribe the 
entry. 

However this may be, no record of the licensing of 
The Wedding has been preserved. Ward, indeed, 
asserts that it was licensed ''9 Feb. 1626";^^ but this 
statement is obviously a clerical error due to a repe- 
tition of the date above— that of the licensing of The 
Maid's Revenge. The accepted date of presentation 
is fixed by a passage in a mock legal document em- 
bodied in Act III, scene ii: ''In witness whereof, I 
have hereunto put my hand and seal . . . the last day 
of the first merry month and in the second year of the 
reign of King— Cupid" ;^^ i.e., the thirty-first day 
of May, in the second year of the reign of King 
Charles. For this clever and plausible interpreta- 

13 Ward, in DNB., lii, 130. 

1* The Wedding, III, ii; Works, I, 406. 

[40] 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

tion, chronologists are indebted to Fleay.^^ As the 
play was printed in 1629, Fleay's error— if he be in 
error— is not large. 

For nearly two years after the licensing of The 
Brothers of 1626, Shirley brought no new play before 
the public; then, on October 3, 1628, he obtained 
license for The Witty Fair One}^ Thirteen months 
later, on November 3, 1629, The Grateful Servant 
was licensed under the title The Faithful Servant}'^ 
According to their title-pages, these two plays, like all 
other extant plays of Shirley's first dramatic period, 
with the single exception of Changes, or Love in a 
Maze}^ were acted by the Queen's men at Drury 
Lane. 

In the year last mentioned, 1629, The Wedding — 
acted, according to Fleay's hypothesis, three years 
before— was given to the press: the earliest play of 
Shirley to be published. Fleay asserts that it was en- 
tered for J. Grove ;^^ but in the Stationers' Register 
I find no record. The play, dedicated to William 
Gowre, Esq., was introduced by commendatory verses 

1^ Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 405. 

^® Malone's Shakspere, 1821, ill, 231, note. 

17 Ihid. 

^^ "Presented at the Private House in Salisbury Court, by the Com- 
pany of his Majesties Revels." (Title-page of 1632; from the copy 
belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq.) 

1^ Fleay, in English Drama, 11, 233 ; but with a reference to S. R., 
1638, April 28. 

1:40 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

by Edmond Colles, Robert Harvey, Thomas May, 
John Ford the dramatist, and William Habington. 
Of these verses, the lines of Ford shall serve as an 
example : 

Of this Ingenious Comedy, The WEDDING: 
To Mr. James Shirley, the Author. 

The bonds are equal, and the marriage fit, 

Where judgment is the bride, the husband wit. 

Wit hath begot, and judgment hath brought forth, 

A noble issue of delight and worth. 

Grown in this Comedy to such a strength 

Of sweet perfection, as that not the length 

Of days, nor rage of malice, can have force 

To sue a nullity, or work divorce 

Between this well-trimmed Wedding and loud Fame, 

Which shall in every age renew thy name.^^ 

The title-page of this edition reads : 

The Wedding. As it was lately Acted by her Maies- 

ties Seruants, at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. Written By 

lames Shirley, Gent. Horat. — Multaq; pars mei Vitabit 

Libitlnam — London. Printed for lohn Groue, and are to 

be sold at his shop at Furnlualls Inne Gate in Holborne. 
1629.20a 

A year later, on February 26, 1629/30, The Grate- 

20 If^orksj I, Ixxi. 

20a Fj-om the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

1:42: 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

fill Servant was entered upon the Stationers' Register 
for J. Grove.^^ The title-page of this edition reads: 

The Gratefvll Servant. A Comedie. As it was lately 
presented with good applause at the priuate House in 
Drury-Lane, By her Majesties Servants. Written by 
lames Shirley Gent. — Vsque ego postera Crescam laude 
recens. London. Printed by B. A. and T. F. for John 
Groue, and are to be sold at his shop at Furnivals-Inne 
gate, 1630.22 

Prefixed to the published play were nine poems, in- 
cluding one by Philip Massinger, all written in lavish 
commendation of the comedy. "The reason," wrote 
Shirley, "why my play cometh forth ushered by so 
many lines, was the free vote of my friends, whom I 
could not with civility refuse. I dare not own their 
character of myself, or play; but I must join with 
them that have written, to do the comedians justice, 
amongst whom, some are held comparable with the 
best that are, and have been, in the world. "^^ 

In the following year, 1631, three more of Shirley's 
plays were licensed for presentation: The Traitor, 
May 4; 2* The Duke, May 17;^^ and Love's Cruelty, 

21 S. R., IV, 195. 

22 From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

23 Works, II, 5. 

2* Malone's Shakspere, 1821, in, 231, note. 

"^'^ Ibid., 232, note. Fleay, in English Drama, il, 237, and Ward, in 
DNB., Lii, 132 but not 133, misprint this date as May 7 for May 17. 

1:433 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

November 14.^^ The second of these is probably 
identical with the play which, when entered in the 
Stationers' Register, July 29, 1639, was entitled The 
Humorous Courtier.^'^ 

To the same year, 1631, belongs the publication of 
Love Tricks^ under the new title The Schoole of 
Complement^ entered in the Stationers' Register for 
F. Constable, February 25, 1630/31.^^ The title- 
page of this edition reads: 

The Schoole of Complement. As It was acted by her 
Maiesties Seruants at the Priuate house in Drury Lane. — 
Haec placult semel. By J. S. London, Printed by E. A. 
for Francis Constable, and are to be sold at his shop in 
Pauls Church-yard, at the signe of the Crane. 1631.^^ 

The year 1632 was equally productive. On Janu- 
ary 10, 163 1/2, was licensed The Changes ;^^ on 
April 20, 1632, Hyde Park;^^ and on November 16, 
The BalL^^ A fourth play, The Arcadia, probably 
belonging likewise to this year, I reserve for the fol- 
lowing chapter. Shirley's only publication for this 

26 Malone's Shakspere, 1821, III, 232, note. 

2^ S. R.J iv, 447. Fleay, in Anglia, viil, 409, and in English Drama, 
n, 234, misprints this date as July 20 for July 29. 

28 (S. R.J IV, 215. Fleay, in Anglia, Vlil, 406, gives this date as 1630 
without specifying that it is Old Style. 

2^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

^0 Malone's Shakspere, 1821, III, 232, note. 

31 Ihid. 

32 Ihid. 

1:44] 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

year was Changes, or Love in a Maze, entered in 
the Stationers' Register for W. Cooke, February 
9, 1631/2.^^ Its full title reads: 

Changes: or, Love In a Maze. A Comedie, As It was 
presented at the Private House in Salisbury Court, by the 
Company of His Majesties Revels. Written by lames 

Shirley, Gent. Deserta per avia dulcis Raptat Amor. 

London: Printed by G. P. for William Cooke, and are to 
be sold at his shop neere Furnlvals Inne gate In Holborne, 
1632.34 

Of the four plays belonging to this year 1632, one, 
The Bally vv^as shortly to occasion further record. On 
November 18, 1632, two days after it was licensed, 
Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels, made this 
entry in his office-book: 

In the play of The Ball, written by Sherley, and acted 
by the Queens players, ther were divers personated so 
naturally, both of lords and others of the court, that I 
took It 111, and would have forbidden the play, but that 
BIston [Christopher Beeston, the manager] promlste 
many things which I found faulte withall should be left 
out, and that he would not suffer It to be done by the poett 
any more, who deserves to be punlsht ; and the first that 
offends In this kind, of poets or players, shall be sure of 
publlque punlshment.^^ 

33 S. R., IV, 238. 

3* From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

35 Malone's Shakspere^ 1821, III, 231-232. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

To this passage, we shall have occasion to recur in our 
critical study of the play in Chapter IX. 

Having now considered the circumstances of Shir- 
ley's entrance into London, and having recorded the 
licensing and the publication of the works of his first 
dramatic period, I shall devote the remainder of 
this chapter to a discussion of the identity of the play 
licensed as The Brothers, November 4, 1626. This 
work, in Fleay's opinion,^^ cannot be identical with 
Shirley's The Brothers of 1652, published as one of 
Six New Playes, 1653 ; ^^ but is rather to be identified 
with the tragicomedy called Dicke of Devonshire, 
which Bullen,^* in 1883, ascribed to Heywood. Of 
Fleay's conclusions in this matter, Schelling has re- 
cently remarked: ''There seems some reason for this 
opinion."^® Later, however, he declares: "It is im- 
possible to follow Fleay in the nice distinctions by 
which he transfers the title. The Brothers, to the 
anonymous Dick of Devonshire, and identifies Shir- 
ley's play before us [The Brothers of 1652] with The 
Politic Father, licensed for the King's men in 
1641."^^ In view of this uncertainty concerning the 
identity of the plays in question, an examination of 

3^ Fleay, in English Drama, il, 236-237, and in Anglia, viii, 405-406. 
^'^ In this collection, the joint title-page is dated 1653; but of the 
individual title-pages, all but the last are dated 1652. 
2* Bullen, Collection of Old English Plays, II, 1-4. 
"^ Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, I, 293. 
*o Ibid., II, 288. 

[46] 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

the evidence is here in order. To readers who enjoy 
such critical investigations, the problem presented 
will appeal as one of the most fascinating puzzles of 
the Shirley canon; to others, I fear, the discussion 
must seem a waste of time and printers' ink. 



The initial link in Fleay's long argument, is to show 
that the play known to us as The Politician^^ is not 
the play licensed as The Politique Father, May 26, 
1641.^^ So slight is the argument in favor of their 
identity, that one begrudges the space necessary to its 
refutation; yet refuted it must be, if The Politique 
Father is to be identified instead with The Brothers 
of 1652. Dyce found The Politique Father licensed 
but, under that title, never printed, and The Politi- 
cian printed but, under that title, never licensed ; and, 
desiring to account for both, he jumped to the con- 
clusion that the two were one. Under these circum- 
stances, the burden of proof is wholly upon Dyce; 
but all that he offers us is this : 

*^ Works, V, 89-176. The title-page of my copy reads as follows: 
"The Polititian, A Tragedy. Presented at Salisbury Court by her 
Majesties Servants; Written by James Shirley. London. Printed for 
Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes 
Armes in St. Pauls Church-yard. 1655." 

*^ Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii, 232, note. 

1:47: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Mr. Gliiord observes that The Politician ''does not 
appear to have been licensed by the Master of the 
Revels": he thinks that it was produced not later than 
1639 5 ^^^ that it may indeed have been represented while 
the poet was in Ireland. I feel convinced, however, that 
the following entry in Sir Henry Herbert's office-book, 
relates to this tragedy: ^^The Politique Father, May 26, 
1 641": we have already seen that Shirley's dramas were 
not always printed with the names under which they had 
been licensed. The Politician was given to the press in 
1655, as Presented at Salisbury Court by her Majesties 
Servants.^^ 

Before accepting this hypothesis, we may justly ask 
of Dyce three things: (i) that his hypothesis shall 
best account for the fact that The Politique Father, 
although licensed, was, under that title, never printed ; 
and for the fact that The Politician, although 
printed, was, under that title, never licensed; (2) 
that the title of the licensed play shall be appropriate 
to the subject-matter of the drama published; and 
(3) that the hypothesis proposed shall not conflict 
with known facts or with strong probabilities. 

Tried by these tests, the hypothesis of Dyce fails of 
establishment. In the first place, to assert the iden- 
tity of The Politique Father and The Politician is 
not the best way to account for the fact that no play 
of the former title has been published and no play of 

*^ Dyce, in Works, I, xxxviii-xxxix. 

n48n 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

the latter title has been licensed. Other hypotheses 
are quite as good. Concerning the published play 
we might assume, for example, that this play, al- 
though published as "Presented ... by her Majes- 
ties Servants," was never actually licensed or pre- 
sented. In 1655, both Shirley and his publisher 
might well have been in ignorance of what had been 
done with the manuscript by her Majesty's Servants 
during Shirley's absence in Ireland fifteen years be- 
fore. Indeed they might even — for the sake of better 
sales— have ventured a false statement on the title- 
page: in 1655 such a statement would pass without 
detection. Better still, we might assume that the rea- 
son why we have no record of the license is not that 
the play was never licensed in due form, but merely 
that Malone, by some oversight, failed to transcribe 
the license-record from the now-lost office-book: this 
is not the only extant play of Shirley for which we 
lack this record. Concerning the licensed play. The 
Politique Father, we might assume either that the 
play was never published, or better (as we shall see) 
that it is to be identified not with The Politician but 
with the play published as The Brothers in 1652. 
In his letter of August 7, 1641, the Lord Chamber- 
lain, the Earl of Essex, named as the property of the 
King's men three plays by Shirley: ^^The doubtfull 

[149] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

heire. The Imposture. . . . The Brothers/'^'^ If, 
by August 7, 1641, the name of the play licensed as 
Rosania, June i, 1640, had been changed by its author 
or by its actors to The Doubtful Heir, surely there 
was no reason why the play licensed as The Politique 
Father, May 26, 1641, should not, by August 7, 1641, 
become The Brothers. Since these various supposi- 
tions are quite as adequate as is the hypothesis of 
Dyce, the mere fact that The Politique Father was 
licensed but, under that title, never printed, and that 
The Politician was printed but, under that title, 
never licensed, is not sufficient to prove the two iden- 
tical. 

In the second place, the title of the play known to 
us from the license-record is not appropriate to the 
subject-matter of the published drama. Gotharus, 
the politician, proves to be neither "politique" nor a 
"father"; the credulous King of Norway, father of 
Prince Turgesius, is even less politic than his min- 
ister; and as for Count Altomarus, father of Haral- 
dus, he is politic only in the fact that he had the 
foresight to die before the action of Shirley's play 
begins. Moreover, in the "Small Characters of the 
Persons" prefixed to The Politician, no one of the 
characters is described as "politique," as might be 

** The letter is reprinted in full by E. K. Chambers in The Malone 
Society Collections^ Parts IV & V , pp. 364-369. 

[50: 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

expected were The Politician but a new name for 
The Politique Father. In short, no appropriateness 
of title to material indicates that the play licensed as 
The Politique Father is the play that has come down 
to us as The Politician. 

And in the third place, Dyce's hypothesis must be 
accepted, if at all, in the face of the strong probability 
that the plays he would identify belonged to rival 
companies. From the title-page of The Politician, 
we know that it was acted by the Queen's men : "Pre- 
sented at Salisbury Court by her Majesties Servants." 
From the date of the licensing of The Politique Fa- 
ther, we can be all but certain that the play was 
licensed for the King's men. Malone's extracts from 
the lost office-book of the Master of the Revels do not 
specify for what companies the plays were licensed. 
The title-pages of the printed plays, however, tell us 
by what company each play was acted: from these 
title-pages we know that, before Shirley went to Ire- 
land, he wrote, with but a single exception ^^ (unless 
The Brothers be a second), for the Queen's men at 
the private house in Drury Lane;^^ that during his 
absence in Ireland, his new plays were presented in 

*^ The exception is Changes, or Love in a Maze, "presented at the 
Private House in Salisbury Court by the Company of His Majesties 
Revels." Note that this is not the company of the "King's men," i.e., 
"his Majesties Servants." 

*^ See the full title-pages in the Bibliography. 

DO 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

London by the new company of Queen's men at Salis- 
bury Court ;^^ and that after his return, he wrote 
without exception (unless it be this Politique Father) 
for the King's men.^^ In the absence, therefore, of 
evidence to the contrary, we must deem it all but cer- 
tain that The Politique Father, licensed after his 
return from Dublin, was acted, like every other play 
of Shirley's presented subsequent to his return, by his 
Majesty's Servants. How then stands our argu- 
ment? From the title-page of The Politician, we 
know that it was acted by the Queen's men. From 
the date of The Politique Father, we deem it all but 
certain that that play was licensed for the King's men. 
If this be so, the hypothesis of Dyce that the two 
plays are identical, is highly improbable. 

But perhaps it may be objected that the title-page 
of The Politician is incorrect: that this drama was 
not, in reality, ^'Presented at Salisbury Court by her 
Majesties Servants." Even then, the hypothesis of 
Dyce would be improbable. We have established the 
strong probability that The Politique Father was li- 
censed for the King's men. We know from the title- 
page of The Cardinal, that that tragedy was acted by 
the same company.*^ We know further, that The 

^"^ See the full title-pages in the Bibliography. 
*« Ibid. 

*^ ''The Cardinal, A Tragedie, As It was acted at the private House 
in Black Fryers . . . ," i. e., by the King's men. 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Politique Father, whatever its identity, antedates The 
Cardinal; for the former was licensed May 26, 1641, 
and the latter on November 25 of the same year.^^ 
But The Cardinal is expressly called, in its epilogue, 
the first tragedy that Shirley wrote for the King's 
men: 

. . . the Play is a Tragedy, 
The first that ever he compos'd for us.^^ 

Therefore, The Politique Father, which antedates it, 
cannot be a tragedy.^^ The Politician, however, is a 
tragedy not only in its title but in fact.^^ For this 
second reason, therefore. The Politique Father — pro- 
vided always that it was acted, as its date indicates, 
by the King's men— cannot be, as Dyce assumed. The 
Politician, 

In short, the hypothesis of Dyce survives no one of 
the tests we have applied to it. It does not best ac- 
count for the known facts concerning The Politique 
Father and The Politician: other hypotheses prove as 
good or better. It ignores the fact that the title of 
The Politique Father is in no wise appropriate to the 
subject-matter of The Politician. It conflicts with 

^® Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii, 232, note. 
^^ The Cardinal, 1652, p. 70; or Works, V, 352. 
°2 Fleay, English Drama, 11, 246. 
^^ The Polititian, A Tragedy . . . 1655. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

the probabilities (which are all but certainties) that 
the two plays were one a comedy and the other a trag- 
edy, and that they belonged to rival companies. Un- 
der these circumstances, the hypothesis of Dyce may 
be rejected. 



II 



No longer hampered by the supposition that the play 
published as The Politician in 1655 is to be identi- 
fied, as Dyce assumed,^^ with the play licensed as The 
Politique Father in 1641, we are now free to proceed 
to our second point, namely: that the play published 
as The Brothers in 1652 is identical with The Poli- 
tique Father of 1641 rather than with the play li- 
censed as The Brothers in 1626. 

This proposition is plausible from the start. We 
know of no instance in which a play of Shirley was 
renamed during presentation by the Queen's men of 
Salisbury Court; but we do know that Rosania was 
renamed during presentation by the King's men of 
Black Friars. Surely, then, we may as reasonably 
assume that The Politique Father was a play of the 
King's men ultimately renamed The Brothers, as that 
it was a play of the Queen's men ultimately renamed 

5* Dyce, in Works, i, xxxviii. 

1:543 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

The Politician. Moreover, although, as we have 
noted, the title The Politique Father fits ill with the 
subject-matter of The Politician, it fits excellently 
with the story of The Brothers; for Don Ramyres^^ 
proves exceeding ''politique" in marrying his sons to 
best advantage. All this proves nothing; but it goes 
to show that, if there be arguments to support our 
proposition, the field is open. 

From possibility, therefore, we proceed to proba- 
bility: three arguments make probable the change of 
title. In the first place. The Brothers of 1652 was 
published as one of a collection of which the joint 
title ran : 

Six New Playes, Viz. The Brothers. Sisters. DoubtfuU 
Heir. Imposture. Cardinall. Court Secret. The Five 
first were acted at the Private House in Black Fryers with 
great Applause. The last was never Acted. All Written 
by James Shirley. Never printed before. London, . . . 

1653.'' 

Of these six plays, all with the possible exception of 
The Brothers were produced by Shirley in the years 

^^ Fleay gives the title a different application : that the "politique 
father" is not Don Ramyres but Don Carlos. His interpretation, 
however, is based solely upon the chance comment of Francisco to Don 
Carlos, in Act i, scene i : "You show a provident father." Aside from 
the difference between "provident" and "politique," the facts of the 
play make Fleay's application most unlikely: Don Carlos is anything 
but politic. See, however, Fleay, English Drama, II, 246. 

^^ From the title-page of the copy in the possession of the present 
writer. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

1 640-1 642 : for of four we know the license-date, and 
for the fifth we have Shirley's own statement that ^4t 
happened to receive birth when the stage was inter- 
dicted," ^^ that is, after the closing of the theaters in 
1642. In view of these facts, is it probable that Shir- 
ley would include, and would place first, in this com- 
pany of New Flayes, a work that had remained un- 
published for nearly a generation? 

In the second place, one bit of internal evidence 
relates The Brothers of 1652 with the period of The 
Politique Father, 1641, rather than with that of The 
Brothers of 1626. When The Brothers of 1652 was 
acted, there was, presumably, some special meaning 
in the prologue's line : 



58 



You're all betray'd here to a Spanish plot. 



When The Politique Father was acted in 1641, no 
allusion could have been more timely than one to the 
king's Spanish plot of that year — his plot to give 
Spain a part of the Irish army.^^ Unless we assume 
that this passage is a late interpolation, we must see 
in it an additional argument for supposing that the 
play published as The Brothers in 1652 was acted 
about the year 1641 — the date when The Politique 

s'' Dedication of The Court Secret, in Works, v, 428. 

^^ Prologue to The Brothers, in Works, I, 191. 

^^ Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 410; and in English Drama, 11, 246. 

1:563 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Father was licensed — or even for concluding the two 
plays identical. 

In the third place, the play published as The 
Brothers in 1652, is described on its individual title- 
page and on the joint title-page of Six New Playes, 
1653, of which it formed a part, as "acted at the Pri- 
vate House in Black Fryers," ^^ that is, by the King's 
men, for whom Shirley began writing in 1640. This 
circumstance all but negatives the assumption that 
the play published in 1652 is the play licensed under 
the same name in 1626; for, previous to 1640, we 
know of but one instance in which Shirley wrote for 
any company other than the Queen's men, and in that 
instance ^^ he wrote not for the King's men at Black 
Friars but for the Company of his Majesty's Revels 
at Salisbury Court.^^ That Shirley should have writ- 
ten one play for the King's men while he was in the 
employ of the Queen's men, may not be impossible, 
but is at least untimely. We must conclude rather 
that, since the play published as The Brothers in 

^® From the title-pages of the copy in the possession of the present 
writer. 

®^ Changes, or Love in a Maze. 

^^ One play, Love Tricks, or The School of Complementj which 
antedates by a few weeks the organization of her Majesty's Servants, 
was originally acted by the Lady Elizabeth's men ; but appears to have 
been transferred to the repertoire of the new company by Christopher 
Beeston when the Queen's men, upon their organization, succeeded 
to the occupancy of the Phoenix in Drury Lane. See Murray, English 
Dramatic Companies, I, 259. 

n573 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

1652 was "acted at the Private House in Black 
Fryers," it was acted not in 1626 but during the 
period from 1640 to 1642. This argument points not 
to The Brothers of 1626 but to The Politique Father 
of 1641. 

These three arguments— that The Brothers of 1652 
was published as the first of six "new" plays, that it 
contains a line best explained as an allusion to the 
Spanish plot of 1641, and that it was acted by the 
King's men, for whom, so far as we know, Shirley 
began writing in 1640— support the probability that 
the play published as The Brothers in 1652 is identi- 
cal with the play licensed as The Politique Father in 
1 64 1 rather than with the play licensed as The 
Brothers in 1626. Probability, however, is not cer- 
tainty. The certainty — or approximation to certainty 
—comes rather from two considerations still to be 
presented. 

The first of these was advanced thirteen years ago, 
by Nissen.^^ In the dedication of The Brothers of 
1652, Shirley, addressing Thomas Stanley, Esq., 
writes : 

This composition, . . . after its birth, had in my 
thoughts a dedication to your name. . . . You were 
pleased to grace it with your fair opinion, when it was 
represented. . . .^* 

^^ Nissen, p. 13, note 6. 

^* Dedication to The Brothers^ in Works, I, 189. 

1:583 , 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

That Shirley should have written thus of The Bro- 
thers of 1626 is most improbable; for, as Thomas 
Stanley was but one year old in 1 626, he would scarcely 
have been, even in Shirley's thoughts, the recipient 
of a dedication, and certainly would not have graced 
the drama with his fair opinion. If, however, con- 
tinues Nissen, The Brothers of 1652 is really, as 
Fleay maintains. The Politique Father of 1641, then 
the dedication to Thomas Stanley, Esq., would be 
wholly appropriate; for Stanley had entered the uni- 
versity in 1639. 

This argument is conclusive in so far as it concerns 
the relation of The Brothers of 1652 to The Brothers 
of 1626; but it is not conclusive with respect to the 
relation of The Brothers of 1652 to The Politique 
Father of 1641. Their identity, however, appears to 
be conclusively established by a bit of evidence left 
us by Shirley's publisher, Humphrey Moseley. In 
the library of the late Robert Hoe, Esq.,^^^ in a cata- 



^*^ In the spring of 191 1, while this monograph was in preparation, 
the library of Mr. Hoe was placed on exhibition by the Anderson 
Auction Company of New York City, preparatory to the sale that 
began on April 24. Among the books exhibited was perhaps the most 
nearly complete collection of the works of Shirley — especially of first 
editions — that has ever been assembled in America; and to this collec- 
tion, through the courtesy of the company, the writer of this mono- 
graph was given access, with opportunity for leisurely and detailed 
examination. For courtesies then extended to him, he takes this 
opportunity to thank the company and its representatives, especially 
Mr. E. F. Hanaburgh. 

i:s93 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

logue bound with Shirley's Six New Playes of 1653, 
occurs this advertisement : 

These Books I have now in the Presse, 
ready to come forth. 

130. Six new Playes, viz. 

BROTHERS. 
SISTERS. 
The I DOUBTFUL HEIR. 
IMPOSTURE. 
CARDINALL. 
COURT SECRET. 

By James Shirley, Gent, in 8°. Being all 
that ever the Author made for the Private 
house in Black-Fryers. 

"Being all that ever the Author made for the Private 
house in Black-Fryers" : if these indeed be "all," then 
must one of these six be the play licensed as The Pol- 
itique Father — for that Shirley wrote The Politique 
Father for any but the King's men, is unlikely. By a 
process of elimination, we can account for every play 
in the list except the first: The Court Secret we know 
was never acted; The Doubtful Heir was licensed as 
Rosania, the name of its heroine; The Sisters^ The 
Imposture, and The Cardinal were licensed under 
the names by which we know them. Only The Bro- 
thers remains to be accounted for among the pub- 
lished plays; only The Politique Father among the 

1:603 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

dramas licensed. If Moseley, publishing in Shirley's 
lifetime, told the truth— if these six plays be "all"— 
and if, as we have every reason to believe, The Pol- 
itique Father was licensed for the King's men : then 
must The Politique Father be The Brothers of 1652. 

For these five reasons, then— that The Brothers of 
1652 was published as the first of six "new" plays; 
that it contains what appears to be an allusion to the 
Spanish plot of 1641 ; that it was acted by the King's 
men, for whom we have every reason to suppose that 
Shirley wrote only from 1640 to 1642; that it was 
dedicated to Thomas Stanley, Esq., who was but one 
year old in 1626, but who entered the university in 
1639; and that Moseley's advertisement eliminates 
all possibilities save Fleay's conclusion— for these five 
reasons, I agree with Fleay that The Brothers of 1652 
is to be identified not with The Brothers of 1626 but 
with The Politique Father oi 1641. 

Two of Fleay's propositions we have now consid- 
ered : ( I ) that The Politique Father is not The Poli- 
tician; and (2) that The Brothers of 1652 is not The 
Brothers of 1626 but is rather The Politique Father. 
Are these two propositions now established? As we 
review our discussion, we note that a majority of our 
strongest arguments in support of both propositions 
involve the premise that Shirley in no instance wrote 
for the King's men previous to his return from Ire- 

1:61: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

land, and that he in no instance wrote for the Queen's 
men after his return. This premise we cannot posi- 
tively affirm; for we no longer possess the office-book 
of the Master of the Revels; and an inference based 
solely upon the title-pages now extant establishes only 
a reasonable presumption. When, however, we com- 
bine the arguments that involve this premise, with 
arguments that are not thus brought in doubt, we 
have, I believe, sufficient ground for accepting 
Fleay's conclusions. ^^^ 

III 

My acceptance, however, applies only to Fleay's first 
and second propositions. His third proposition- 
that the play licensed as The Brothers in 1626 is to be 
identified with the play which Bullen, in 1883, pub- 

^^^ On December lo, 1914, while the second proof-sheets of this book 
were still in my possession, I had the pleasure of receiving from Dr. 
Robert Stanley Forsythe a copy of his able work The Relations of 
Shirley's Plays to the Elizabethan Drama, fresh from the press. Nat- 
urally, I read with much attention the section (pages 173-177) in 
which Dr. Forsythe endeavors to maintain the identity of The Broth- 
ers of 1626 with The Brothers of 1652, and the identity of The Poli- 
tique Father with The Politician. Should he convince the world that I 
am wrong in accepting Fleay's conclusions, he will but strengthen the 
principal thesis of my study, that Shirley, beginning as a realist, ended 
his career as a romanticist; for Dr. Forsythe would transfer this 
comedy of manners, The Brothers, from Shirley's third period — a 
period of romantic plays — to his first period, a period of realism, to 
which, for the sake of my thesis, I gladly would assign it. Unfor- 
tunately for me, however, I find Dr. Forsythe's arguments, on the 
points on which we differ, unconvincing. I am letting my chapter 
stand, therefore, just as it was before I saw his book. 

1:623 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

lished under the title Dicke of Devonshire ^^—im- 
presses me as much less certain. The arguments 
which tend to associate Dicke of Devonshire with the 
year 1626, seem to me not so conclusive as Fleay 
assumes; and then, even if we grant that Dicke of 
Devonshire was composed in 1626, we still lack defi- 
nite grounds for identifying it with Shirley's play 
The Brothers. 

As to the date of Dicke of Devonshire, one point 
must instantly be granted: that the play was com- 
posed not earlier than July 18, 1626; for so much of 
the play as relates to Richard Pike, or Peeke, of 
Tavistock, is based upon a pamphlet entered on that 
day in the Stationers' Register: 

A booke cal[le]d Three to one being and [sic] Eng- 
lish Spanish comhatt Performed by a zvesterne man of 
Tavestocke in Deiion: with an English quarter staff e 
against Three Spanish Rapiers and Ponyards at Sherres 
[i.e., Xeres] in Spayne the i§ of Nouember 162^.^^ 

^^ BuUen, A Collection of Old English Plays, II, 1-99 ; from Eg. 
MS. 1994. 

^^ S. R.J IV, 125. The title-page of the pamphlet, as reprinted in 
Arber's English Garner, i, 621-639, reads thus: Three to One. Being 
an English-Spanish combat performed by a Western Gentleman of 
Tavistock in Devonshire, with an English quarterstaff, against three 
Spaniards [at once] with rapiers and poniards; at Sherries [Xeres] 
in Spain, the 15th day of November, 1625: in the presence of Dukes, 
Condes, Marquises, and other great Dons of Spain; being the Council 
of War. The author of this book, and the actor in this encounter; 
i^[ichard] Peeke. Printed at London for I. T. and are to be sold at 
his shop, [n.d.] 

1:633 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

That the play was written not later than the close of 
1626, is indicated— possibly— by a passage in the play 
itself. In a conversation concerning the Spanish Ar- 
mada, in Act I, scene ii, the second merchant says to 
the first: 

. . . Stay; Eighty Eight,— 
Thirty eight yeares agoe; much about then 
Came I into the world. — Well, sir, this fleete?^*^ 

Thirty-eight years added to 1588 place this conversa- 
tion definitely in the year 1626; and Shirley's The 
Brothers was licensed November 4, 1626. But does 
the passage prove that Dicke of Devonshire was com- 
posed in 1626? May it not rather prove that the 
dramatist, writing perhaps years later, thought of the 
events of his play as occurring in or about the year 
1626? To this conclusion, some support is given by 
a passage in Act III, scene i. The hero, in his pam- 
phlet, speaking of an attempt to ransom him, says 
only: "The town, thinking me to be a better prize 
than indeed I was, denied me, and would not part 
from me." ^^ In the play, however, we find the fol- 
lowing dialogue : 

Jewell: . . . Sure they hold him for some great 
noble purchace. 

^'^ Dicke of Devonshire, in Bullen's Collection of Old English Plays, 
II, 16. 

^® Three to One, in Arber's English Garner, i, 631. 

1:643 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Secretary: A Barronet at least, one of the lusty 
blood, Captalne. 

Captaine : Or perhaps, Mr. Secretary, some remark- 
able Commonwealths man, a polliticlan In Government.^^ 

Is this reference to ^'some remarkable Common- 
wealths man, a polliticlan in Government" likely to 
occur so early as 1626? 

But even if we grant that Dicke of Devonshire was 
composed in 1626, the year when The Brothers was 
licensed for presentation, this does not prove the two 
identical. If we knew that Dicke of Devonshire 
were Shirley's, then the coincidence of date would 
be significant. If we possessed the office-book of the 
Master of the Revels, and by it could account for every 
play of 1626 except The Brothers, then we might 
infer that The Brothers is Dicke of Devonshire. But 
no such process of elimination is possible. We do not 
know that Shirley wrote Dicke of Devonshire. We 
do not know that it may not have been licensed by 
another dramatist under some title now lost with the 
lost office-book. For that matter, we cannot be sure 
that it ever was either licensed or presented. We 
know only that it has survived as "Eg. MS. 1994." 

Even, then, if we grant that Dicke of Devonshire 
was composed in 1626, we still need evidence to con- 
nect the play with Shirley's The Brothers. And on 

** Dicke of Devonshire, in Bullen's Collection, ii, 45. 

1:651 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

this point, the evidence is not conclusive. The plot, 
indeed, fits well enough the title of The Brothers; for 
so much of the play as does not concern Richard Pike, 
deals with the relations of Manuel and Henrico, sons 
of Don Pedro Gusman. But to how many plots is 
such a title applicable! Again, as Fleay has pointed 
out, Dicke of Devonshire "is expressly called (near 
the end) 'the story of Two Brothers.' " : 



70 



Macada. Letters shall forthwith fly into Madrid 
To tell the King the storyes of Two Brothers, 
Worthy the Courtiers reading."^^ 

But what does this prove? Even in a single year, how 
many dramas might ofifer such a phrase? With al- 
most as much reason might we identify Shirley's lost 
play Loo^ to the Lady, entered in the Stationers' Reg- 
ister, March ii, 1639/40,^^ with the play published 
as The Politician; for that very phrase, "Look to the 
Lady!" occurs in The Politician, Act V, scene ii."^^ 
Clearly, the mere presence of the words "the storyes 
of Two Brothers" in Dicke of Devonshire, is no proof 
of its identity with Shirley's The Brothers of 1626. 

Again, how do those critics who suppose our dram- 
atist a Roman Catholic, reconcile the anti-Romanist 

'^ Fleay, English Drama, n, 236-237; cf. Anglia, Vlll, 406. 
■^^ Dicke of Devonshire, V, i; in BuUen's Collection, 11, 99. 
72 S. R., IV, 475. 
"^^ The Politician, V, ii; Works, v, 172. 

1:663 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

speeches in this play with the alleged religious sym- 
pathies of Shirley? Would so recent a convert to 
Catholicism permit his hero, even for dramatic 
effect, to scorn the sacrament of confession as does 
Dicke of Devonshire in Act IV, scene ii? ^* To allege 
that the episode occurs also in the pamphlet on which 
the play is based, is not a sufficient answer.*^^ 

As for the style of the play, I find in it little that 
resembles Shirley's. In so far as the play con- 
cerns Richard Pike, it follows so closely the substance 
of the pamphlet paragraph by paragraph, that the 
playwright's style is lost in that of the original. For 
the rest— the portions dealing with Manuel, Henrico, 
and Eleonora— much of it is in blank verse not un- 
worthy of Shirley in his lesser works, yet in no wise 
marked by anything peculiar to our dramatist. The 
poetic atmosphere usually belonging to the romantic 
plays of Shirley, I do not find in Dicke of Devon- 
shire. 

In short, although we cannot, in this instance, 
prove beyond question that Fleay's hypothesis is 
wrong, we are quite as far from proving that his hy- 
pothesis is right. The argument based on the plot of 
Dicke of Devonshire and on the alleged allusion to 
the title in the license-list, is of little weight: "storyes 

^* In Bullen's Collection, II, 70-71. 

^5 In Arber's English Garner, i, 632-633. 

1:673 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

of Two Brothers" occur too often in this world to be 
distinctive. The anti-Romanist speeches in Dicke 
of Devonshire ill agree with Shirley's supposed con- 
version to Catholicism. The style of the play has not 
been unmistakably associated with the style of Shir- 
ley. And, finally, as to the date of the two plays, 
although Dicke of Devonshire cannot have been writ- 
ten earlier than the year of the licensing of The Bro- 
thers, not only could it have been written later, but 
the seeming allusion to the Commonwealth makes a 
later date more probable. For these four reasons, I 
must decline to receive Dicke of Devonshire into the 
Shirley canon, and must be content to assume that 
The Brothers of 1626 was never published. But that 
Fleay is right in assuming that The Politique Father 
of 1641 is to be identified not with The Politician but 
with The Brothers of 1652, I hold to be not only 
probable but well-nigh certain. 

To sum up, then, our record of Shirley from 1625 
to 1632, what have we determined? In the first place,, 
we have recognized that the record of the christening 
of ''Mathias, sonne of Mr. James Shurley, gentle- 
man," at St. Giles, Cripplegate, February 26, 1624/5, 
must refer to the Mathias mentioned in the will of 
the dramatist as his "eldest son" ; and upon this recog- 
nition we have based the inference that, on or before 
this date, James Shirley had probably taken up his 

1:68: 



THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

residence in London. In the second place, we have 
noted the dates of the licensing of Love Tricks with 
Complements and The Maid^s Revenge; of the prob- 
able presentation of The Wedding; and of the licens- 
ing of The Brothers, The Witty Fair One, The Faith- 
ful Servant, The Traitor, The Duke, Lovers Cruelty, 
The Changes, Hyde Park, and The Ball; and we 
have noted the dates of the publication, or of the entry 
for publication, of The Wedding, The Grateful Ser- 
vant {The Faithful Servant) ^ The School of Comple- 
ment {Love Tricks)^ and Changes, or Love in a 
Maze. And finally, we have shown— conclusively, 
I trust— that the play licensed as The Brothers in 
1626 is to be identified neither with the play pub- 
lished under that title in 1652 nor with that published 
in 1883 as Dicke of Devonshire, Upon this chronol- 
ogy, we may safely, in Chapters VI to IX, base our 
inferences concerning the development of Shirley 
during his first dramatic period. 



1:69] 



I 



CHAPTER III 

SHIRLEY'S SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

1632-1636 

N The Arcadia of Shirley, Act III, scene i,^ 
Thumb, the miller, protesting against a rebel 
plot, declares : 



We met together to drink in honour of the king's 
birthday, and though we have tickled the cannikins, let us 
be merry and wise, that's my opinion; no treason, the 
king is an honest gentleman, and so is the queen.^ 

A moment later, the discussion is interrupted by the 
arrival of the king himself. In the embarrassment 
that results. Thumb makes himself the spokesman: 

King, by your leave, — Which is the king? my eyes twin- 
kle—We have been playing the good fellows to celebrate 
your majestical birthday; will your grace see a song?^ 

^ Not Act III, scene ii, as Fleay has ft, in his English Drama, 11, 239. 
His error is occasioned by the misprint in the running title in Works, 
VI, 205. 

2 Works, VI, 201-202. ^ Ibid., 205. 

Do] 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Now these two references to the king's birthday have 
no bearing whatever upon the action ; nor is there in 
the play good reason why Thumb should doubt the 
identity of the king, for the king's retinue, at the mo- 
ment, consists solely of his queen, his daughter, and 
a prince disguised as an amazon. Evidently, we 
must seek, for these passages, an external explanation ; 
and this explanation is found in the theory advanced 
by Fleay, that Shirley's Arcadia was first presented 
at court on the birthday of King Charles. This would 
account for the references to "your majestical birth- 
day" ; it would account also for Thumb's uncer- 
tainty. Evidently he addressed his second speech not 
to King Basilius but to King Charles. And this 
theory that The Arcadia was a play written for the 
court, would account also for the fact that it appears 
never to have been licensed by Sir Henry Herbert. 
Since the hypothesis is Fleay's, I will quote his argu- 
ment: 

The Arcadia, z Pastoral, was acted by the Queen's ser- 
vants at Drury Lane, but was evidently originally pre- 
sented at Court on a King's Birthday, 19th Nov.; cf. Hi. 
2 [read: ill, i], "to celebrate your majestical birthday." 
It was not In 1633, ^^^ then The Young Admiral was pre- 
sented. It was before Nabbes' Covent Garden, 1632, for 
that contains an allusion to the actor who personated 
Mopsa. Heywood's Love's Mistress, the scene of which 
Is also in Arcadia, which was the King's day play of 19th 

DO 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Nov. 1634, Is filled with allusions to it. The most likely 
date is, therefore, 19th Nov. 1632. This play, being a 
Court play, does not appear in Herbert's license-list. I 
suspect it was written by "command." ^ 

That Fleay's argument is not absolutely conclusive, 
must be admitted ; and yet, so far as I am aware, no 
evidence has been found to cast doubt upon his rea- 
soning. Tentatively, therefore, I set the date of The 
Arcadia as November 19, 1632; and w^ith this date, 
I begin my account of Shirley's second dramatic 
period. 

The following year, 1633, saw the production of 
three more of Shirley's plays : The Bewties, licensed 
January 21, 1632/3,^ and, a few months later, pub- 
lished as The Bird in a Cage;^ The Young Admiral, 
licensed July 3, 1633;^ and The Gamester, licensed 
November 11.^ Besides these, there was The Night 

* Fleay, English Drama, II, 239. 

^ Malone's Shakspere, 1821, III, 232, note. Gosse, in his introduc- 
tion to the Mermaid Shirley, p. xx, gives the year as 1632, without 
specifying that it is Old Style; and then, forgetful of that fact, he 
places the play before Hyde Park and The Ball, both of which pre- 
cede The Bewties by nearly a year. 

^ The identity of the play licensed as The Bewties and that pub- 
lished as The Bird in a Cage, we need not question. Their dates 
agree; the original title fits the subject of the published play; and the 
reason for the change of title is made evident by the ironical dedica- 
tion to William Prynne, then in confinement. Cf. Fleay, Anglia, VIII, 
407, and English Drama, II, 239-240. 

^ Malone's Shakspere, 1821, III, 232, note. 

8 Ibid. 

1:723 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Walker, ''a play of Fletchers corrected by Sherley," 
licensed May 1 1, 1633.^ 

Concerning The Young Admiral and The Game- 
ster, interesting entries appear in the office-book of 
the Master of the Revels. Under date of July 3, 1633, 
he writes : 

The comedy called The Yonge Admirall, being free 
from oaths, prophaness, or obsceanes, hath given mee 
much delight and satisfaction in the readinge, and may 
serve for a patterne to other poetts, not only for the bet- 
tring of maners and language, but for the improvement of 
the quality, which hath received some brushings of late. 

When Mr. Sherley hath read this approbation, I know 
it will encourage him to pursue this beneficial and cleanly 
way of poetry, and when other poetts heare and see his 
good success, I am confident they will imitate the original 
for their own credit, and make such copies in this harm- 
less way, as shall speak them masters in their art, at the 
first sight, to all judicious spectators. It may be acted this 
3 July, 1633. 

I have entered this allowance, for direction to my suc- 

^ Malone's extracts from Herbert's office-book include two refer- 
ences to The Night Walker, in both of which the title is given in the 
plural: 

( 1 ) " *For a play of Fletchers corrected by Sherley, called The 
Night Walkers, the ii May, 1633, £2. o. o. For the queen's players.' " 

(2) "'The Night-Walkers was acted on thursday night the 30 
Janu. 1633 [i.e., 1633/4] at Court, before the King and Queen. Likt 
as a merry play. Made by Fletcher.' " 

Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii^ 236, and note. 

1:733 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

cesser, and for example to all poetts, that shall write after 
the date hereof.^^ 

Four months later, he records : 

On tusday the 19th of November, being the king's 
birth-day, The Yong Admirall was acted at St. James by 
the queen's players, and likt by the K. and Queen.^^ 

And the following February, there appears this 
entry : 

On thursday night the 6 of Febru. 1633 [i.e., 
1633/4], The Gamester was acted at Court, made by 
Sherley, out of a plot of the king's, given him by mee; 
and well likte. The king sayd it was the best play he had 
seen for seven years. ^^ 

This royal opinion — though open to suspicion of par- 
tiality—appears to have been w^ell founded; for Shir- 
ley's The Gamester and its successive revisions held 
the stage vs^ell into the nineteenth century. 

Shirley's publications for the same year, 1633, vs^ere 
a second edition of The Wedding; a dramatic alle- 
gory entitled A Contention for Honor and Riches, 
entered in the Stationers' Register for W. Cooke the 
previous autumn, November 9, 1632;^^ The Witty 
Fair One, entered for the same publisher on January 
15, 1632/3;^^ and The Bird in a Cage, also for W. 

'^^ Malone's Shakspere, 1821, III, 232-233. ^^ Ibid., 234. ^^ Ibid., 236. 
^^ S. R., IV, 262. In the entry, the title reads: A Dialogue of Riches 
and honor by J : S. ^* S. R., IV, 265. 

D4n 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Cooke, March 19, 1632/3/^ Of these four publica- 
tions, the title-pages, transcribed from the copies be- 
longing to the late Robert Hoe, Esq., read as follows : 

The Wedding. As it was lately Acted by her Maies- 
ties Seruants, at the Phenix in Drury-Lane. Written by 
lames Shirley, Gent. Horat. — Multaq, pars mei Vitabit 
Libitinam — London; Printed for lohn Groue, and are to 
be sold at his Shop in Chancery-Lane, neere the Rowles, 
ouer against the Suppeny-Office. 1633. 

" A Contention for Honovr and Riches. By J. S. — ubi 
quid datur oti, illudo chartis — London, Printed by E. A. 
for William Cooke, and are to be sold at his shop neere 
Furnivals Inne gate in Holborne. 1633. 

The Wittie Faire One. A Comedie. As it was pre- 
sented at the Private House in Drvry Lane. By her 
Maiesties Servants. By lames Shirley. . . . London 
Printed by B. A. and T. F. for Wil. Cooke, and are to be 
sold at his shop, neere Furnivals-Inne Gate, in Holborne. 

1633- 

The Bird in a Cage. A Comedie. As it hath beene 
Presented at the Phoenix in Drury-Lane. The Author 
lames Shirley, Servant to Her Majesty. luven. Satyra. 
7. Et Spes, & ratio Studiorum, in Caesare tantum. Lon- 
don Printed by B. Alsop. and T. Fawcet. for William 
Cooke, and are to be sold at his Shop neere Furnivals- 
Inne Gate, in Holborne. 1633. 

^^ S. R., IV, 267. Fleay, in Anglic, viii, 407, misprints this as March 
10. In the entry in the Stationers' Register, the title reads. The Bird 
in the Cage, not "a" Cage. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The publication of The Bird in a Cage incidentally 
presented Shirley in the role of champion of the 
queen against the Puritan satirist William Prynne. 
In the year 1632, Henrietta Maria and her ladies had 
taken part, at court, in the presentation of Montague's 
pastoral drama. The Shepherds' Paradise}^ Their 
participation may, or may not, have been the actual 
occasion of Prynne's obscene abuse of women players 
in his Histriomastix, published shortly afterward i^"^ 
but the Court of the Star Chamber so interpreted his 

^^ See Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, ii, 173. Fleay once suggested 
{Anglia, viii, 407) that the play in which the queen participated might 
have been Shirley's Arcadia. 

'^'^ Histrio-Mastix. The Players Scovrge, or. Actors Tragadie, . . . 
Wherein it is largely evidenced . . . That popular Stage-playes (the 
very Pompes of the Divell which we renounce in Baptisme, if we be- 
leeve the Fathers) are sinfull, heathenish, lewde, ungodly Spectacles. 
. . . By William Prynne, an Vtter-Barrester of Lincolnes Inne. . . . 
London, . . . 1633. 

The passages concerning women actors occur on pp. 162, 214-215, 
1000, 1002, 1003, and in the index entry under "W." Of these, the 
index entry shall be sufficient illustration: 

"Women-Actors, notorious whores, p. 162, 214, 215, 1002, 1003. 
UnlawfuU. Ibid. Hence Justinian. Autenticorum Collat. 5. Tit. 4. f. 
46. enacted this Law: Scenicas non solum si fidejustores prestent, sed 
etiam si jus-jurandum dent quod observabunt &' impiam complebunt 
operationem, & quod nunquam ab impia ilia ^ turpi operatione cessa- 
buntj possent sine periculo discedere. Et tale jus-jurandum a scenica 
praestitum, & fide jussoris datio non tenebit. And good reason: for 
S. Paul prohibites women to speake publikely in the Church, i Cor. 14. 
34. I Tim. 2. 12. And dare then any Christian women be so more 
then whorishly impudent, as to act, to speake publikely on a Stage, 
(perchance in mans apparell, and cut haire, here proved sinfull and 
abominable) in the presence of sundry men and women? Dii talem 
terris avertite pestem. O let such presidents of impudency, of impiety 
be never heard of or suffred among Christians." 

D63 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

attack, and sentenced the unhappy reformer to lose 
his ears in the pillory, to pay a fine of five thousand 
pounds, and to be imprisoned for life.^^ How bit- 
terly James Shirley, ^'Servant to her Majesty," re- 
sented the attacks of Prynne, appears in his address to 
Prynne, in the verses prefixed to Ford's Love's Sacri- 
fice, 1633: 

Look here, thou, that hast malice to the stage 
And impudence enough for the whole age ; 
Voluminously ignorant ! be vext 
To read this tragedy, and thy own be next.^^ 

Even more bitter, however, was Shirley's ironical 
dedication of The Bird in a Cage: 

To Master William Prynne, 

Utter-Barrister of Lincoln's-Inn. 

Sir: 

The fame of your candour and innocent love to learn- 
ing, especially to that musical part of humane knowledge, 
Poetry, and in particular to that which concerns the stage 
and scene, (yourself, as I hear, having lately written a 
Tragedy) doth justly challenge from me this Dedication. 
I had an early desire to congratulate your happy retire- 
ment ; but no poem could tempt me with so fair a circum- 
stance as this in the title, wherein I take some delight to 
think (not without Imitation of yourself, who have Ingeni- 

1® Works, II, 367, note. ^^ Ibid., VI, 509. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ously fancied such elegant and apposite names for your 
own compositions as Health's Sickness, The Unloi'eliness 
of Loze-locks, &:c.) how aptly I may present you at this 
time, with the Bird in a Cage, a comedy, which wanteth, 
I must confess, much of that ornament, which the stage 
and action lent it, for it comprehending also another play 
or interlude, personated by ladies, I must refer to your 
imagination, the music, the songs, the dancing, and other 
varieties, which I know would have pleas'd you infinitely 
in the presentment. I was the rather inclined to make this 
oblation, that posterit}^ might read you a patron to the 
muses, and one that durst in such a critical age, bind up 
the wounds which ignorance had printed upon wit and 
the professors : proceed (inimitable Mecenas) and having 
such convenient leisure, and an indefatigable Pegasus, I 
mean your prose (which scometh the road of common 
sense, and despiseth any st}^le in his way), travel still in 
the pursuit of new discoveries, which you may publish if 
you please, in your next book of Digressions. If you do 
not happen presently to convert the organs, you may in 
time confute the steeple, and bring every parish to one 
bell. 

This is all I have to say at this time, and my own 
occasions not permitting my personal attendance, I have 
entreated a gentleman to deliver this testimony of my 
service ; many faults have escaped the press, which your 
judgment will no sooner find, than your mercy correct, 
by which you shall teach others a charity to your own 
volumes, though they be all errata. If you continue where 
you are, you will ever}^ day enlarge your fame, and beside 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

the engagement of other poets to celebrate your Roman 
constancy, in particular oblige the tongue and pen of your 
devout honourer, 

James Shirley.^^ 

Doubly appropriate, in view of this dedication, 
was the selection of Shirley to be the author of a 
masque in which the four Inns of Court should voice 
their abhorrence of the attitude of Prynne and their 
loyalty to the king and queen. This masque, which 
was presented at Whitehall on February 3, 1633/4, 
and again at Merchant Taylors' Hall on February 
II, was a spectacle of the utmost magnificence. The 
participants, splendidly costumed, assembled at Ely 
and Hatton Houses, and proceeded in gorgeous pro- 
cession, attended by torch-bearers and musicians, to 
the palace. Twice the chariots of the "Grand 
Masquers" and the attendant cavalcade passed under 
the window where stood the king and queen; then, 
dismounting, the participants entered the banqueting- 
house of Whitehall. There, with elaborate scenery 
and stage effects designed by '^Inigo Jones Esquire, 
Surveyor of his Majesty's works," ^^ and to the ac- 
companiment of music composed "by Mr. William 
Lawes and Mr. Simon Ives, whose art," says the mod- 
est dramatist, "gave an harmonious soul to the other- 

20 Works, II, 367-369. 21 /^£^.^ vi^ 284. 

1:79:1 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

wise languishing numbers/' ^^ the gentlemen of the 
four Inns of Court presented James Shirley's masque 
The Triumph of Peace. It was an entertainment of 
dances, songs, and spectacle, set in dramatic dialogue 
and diversified with many an antimasque humorous 
or satiric; an entertainment, says the printed copy, 
"which was, for the variety of the shows and richness 
of the habits, the most magnificent that hath been 
brought to court in our time."^^ Of the expenses of 
this masque, Mr. Whitelocke, one of the committee in 
charge, has left the following record : 

For the Musicke, which was particularly committed 
to my charge, I gave to Mr. Ives and to Mr. Lawes ioo£ 
a piece, for their rewards ; . . . and the whole charge of 
the Musicke came to about one thousand pounds. The 
clothes of the horsemen reckoned one with another at 
ioo£ a suit, att the least, amounted to io,ooo£. The 
charges of all the rest of the masque, which were borne 
by the societies, were accounted to be above twenty thou- 
sand pounds.^* 

What reward came to Shirley for his services, White- 
locke does not state. ^^ 

22 Works, VI, 284. 

23 Ibid., VI, 283-284. 

2* From a MS. by Whitelocke, quoted by Dyce in Works, i, xxviii, 
note. 

25 Concerning The Triumph of Peace, Malone {Shakspere, 1821, 
III, 236) gives the following extract from the ofEce-book of the Mas- 
ter of the Revels: 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Besides this masque, The Triumph of Peace, Shir- 
ley produced in the year 1634 two comedies: The 
Example, licensed June 24, and The Opportunity, 
licensed November 29.^^ In the same year, The 
Traitor, destined to be published in 1635, was entered 
in the Stationers' Register for W. Cooke, November 
3.^'^ The Triumph of Peace, entered for the same 
publisher on January 24, 1633/4, Passed through 
three editions within the year.^^ The title-page of 
the copy in the Hoe Collection reads : 

The Trivmph of Peace. A Masque, presented by the 
Foure Honourable Houses, or Innes of Court. Before 
the King and Queenes Majesties, in the Banquetting-house 
at White Hall, February the third, 1633. Invented and 
Written, By James Shirley, of Grayes Inne, Gent. 
Primum hunc Arethusa mihi — London, Printed by lohn 
Norton, for William Cooke, and are to be sold at his 
Shop, neere Furnivals-Inne-gate, in Holborne. 1633. 

The year 1635 adds four items to our chronology: 
the publication of The Traitor, which had been en- 

"The Inns of court gentlemen presented their masque at court, be- 
fore the kinge and queene, the 2 \_sic'\ February, 1633 [i.e., 1633/4], 
and performed it very well. Their shew through the streets was glori- 
ous, and in the nature of a triumph. — Mr. Surveyor Jones invented 
and made the scene; Mr. Sherley the poett made the prose and verse." 

26 Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii, 232, note. 

2^ S. R.. IV, 303. 

28 The entry, S. R., iv, 287, reads: "The Maske of the four Inns of 
Court with the Sceane as it is to be presented before his Maiesty at 
Whitehall the third of ffebruary next." 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

tered in the Stationers' Register on the third of No- 
vember previous; and the licensing of The Corona- 
tiorij February 6, 1634/5;^^ of Chabot, Admiral of 
France, by Chapman and Shirley, April 29 ; ^^ and of 
The Lady of Pleasure, October 15.^^ 

For this edition of The Traitor, the title-page of 
the copy in the Hoe Collection reads : 

The Traytor. A Tragedie, written by lames Shirley. 
Acted By her Majesties Servants. London: Printed for 
William Cooke, and are to be sold at his Shop at Furnl- 
vals Inne-gate In Holborne. 1635. 

This was the last work of Shirley to be published be- 
fore he went to Ireland. 

Concerning the presentation of one of the plays 
licensed in this year, Collier quotes from the manu- 
script diary of Sir Humphrey Mildmay the follow- 
ing entry: 

8 Dec. [1635.] Dined with Rob. Dowgell, and went to 
the La. of Pleasure, and saw that rare playe.^^ 

Of the other plays licensed in 1635, both have suf- 
fered from disputed authorship. The earlier of these. 
The Coronation, was published, but five years after 

29 Malone's Shakspere, 1821, m, 232, note. 

30 Ibid. 31 11,1^^ 

32 Collier's History of English Dramatic Poetry^ 11, 70, note. 

1:823 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

its presentation, as "Written by John Fletcher, 
Gent."^" Shirley reclaimed it in his "Catalogue of 
the Authors Poems already printed" appended to 
The Cardinal, 1652. In this list, against the title of 
The Coronation, he prints the note : 



34 



Falsely ascribed to Jo. Fletcher. 



The play was again printed as Fletcher's in the Beau- 
mont and Fletcher folio of 1679 ; but in view of Shir- 
ley's explicit statement, and in view of the fact that 
Fletcher had been dead nearly ten years before the 
play was licensed, we need not hesitate to assign the 
play to Shirley. 

Concerning Chabot, Admiral of France, the truth 
is not so evident. Malone's summary of Herbert's 
license-list gives no hint that the play is by any hand 
but Shirley's. In "A Catalogue of such things as hath 
beene Published by James Shirley Gent.," printed in 
The M aides Revenge, 1639,^^ and again in "A Cata- 
logue of the Authors Poems already printed," ap- 
pended to The Cardinal, 1652,^^ the titles ^'Chabot 
Admirall of France^^ and ^^Philip Chabot Admiral! 
of France^^ appear without mention of a collaborator. 

3^ From the title-page of the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, 
Esq. 

^* From the copy in the possession of the present writer. 
2^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 
^^ From the copy in the possession of the present writer. 

C833 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

On the other hand, although the Stationers' Register 
names only Shirley as the author,^^ the title-page of 
the first edition reads : 

The Tragedie of Chabot Admirall of France: As it 
was presented by her Majesties Servants, at the private 
House in Drury Lane. Written by George Chapman, 
and James Shirly. London Printed by The [Tho.] 
Cotes, for Andrew Crooke and William Cooke. 1639.^^ 

When, from this external evidence, we pass to the 
internal evidence of style, we find that those critics 
who are best qualified to judge, attribute the larger 
portion of the play to Chapman. Dyce, in his ac- 
count prefixed to Shirley's Works, expresses the opin- 
ion that '^nearly the whole of this tragedy is evidently 
from Chapman's pen";^^ and in the note prefixed to 
the play, he adds: '^ Chapman seems to have written 
so large a portion of it, that I . . . thought it scarcely 
admissible in a collection of Shirley's works." ^^ 
Fleay was of the opinion that '^Chapman wrote I, II, 
and the prose speeches in III, i, V, 2, of the Proctor 
and Advocate. . . . Shirley altered and rewrote the 
latter part. III, IV, V."*^ Swinburne held that '^of 

^•^5. i2.,iv, 415. 

^^ From the facsimile title-page in the edition by Lehman, Pub- 
lications of the University of Pennsylvania, 1906. 
^^ Dyce, in Works, i, xxxii. 
*o Ibid., VI, 87. 
*^ Fleay, English Drama, 11, 241. 

1:84] 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

the authorship of Chabot there can be no question; 
the subject, the style, the manner, the metre, the char- 
acters, all are perfectly Chapman's." ^^ Ward, in his 
English Dramatic Literature, remarked: ''Most 
readers will be inclined to follow Dyce in concluding 
'nearly the whole'— or at least the body— of it to be 
from Chapman's pen" ; ^^ and in his article on Shirley 
in the Dictionary of National Biography, Ward fur- 
ther said: "Although Shirley may have made some 
not immaterial additions to this fine tragedy, which 
Chapman may have left incomplete at his death in 
1634, there can be little doubt but that in substance it 
is to be reckoned among Chapman's works, to some of 
the most characteristic of which it exhibits an un- 
doubted affinity."^^ Lehman, in the introduction to 
his edition of Chabot, sums up his own impressions 
thus: 

After a careful comparative study of Chapman's and 
Shirley's styles and methods, I have reached the conclu- 
sion that the play was originally written by Chapman and 
subsequently revised by Shirley. There is scarcely a page 
upon which the peculiarities of the former's style are not 
discernible. The principal of these peculiarities are: in- 
volved sentences, tortuous thought, and the tendency to 

*^ Swinburne, Essay on George Chapman s Poetical and Dra- 
matic Works, xxxii. 

*^ Ward, English Dramatic Literature, II, 444. 
4* Ward, in DNB., lii, 133. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

philosophize. On the other hand, the evidence of re- 
vision is to be found in many places. The angular gram- 
matical constructions are not so numerous as in other 
plays of Chapman, the thought is somewhat clarified, and 
there is greater degree of dramatic unity than is common 
in Chapman's plays.^^ 

Parrott, in his introduction to Chabot, in his edi- 
tion of The Plays and Poems of George Chapman, 
1 910, agrees with Lehman that ^'the play was origi- 
nally composed by Chapman and revised by Shirley." 
Parrott believes that "this revision was very careful, 
and amounted occasionally to the complete rewriting 
of a scene" ; and that, to state briefly his conclusions, 
"three scenes of the eleven composing the play, 
namely, I, i, II, iii, and V, ii, remain essentially as 
Chapman wrote them; that II, i, and III, i, are prac- 
tically new scenes by Shirley, displacing, in the first 
case at least, older work by Chapman ; and that all 
the rest of the play presents a groundwork of Chap- 
man, revised, cut down, and added to by Shirley."^^* 
And then, after a plausible hypothesis as to how the 
revision of this play by Chapman fell to Shirley, Par- 
rott adds : 

Shirley would cut down the long epic speeches, cut out 

*^ Lehman, The Tragedy of Chabot, introduction, p. 25. 
*^* Parrott, The Plays and Poems of George Chapman. The 
Tragedies, p. 633. 

1:863 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

as much as possible the sententious moralizing, fill In with 
lively dialogue, Introduce, or at least strengthen, the fig- 
ures of the Wife and the Queen to add a feminine interest 
to the play, and in general make It over for the stage of 
his day. And It is impossible to compare Chahot with such 
plays as The Revenge of Bussy or the Byron tragedies 
without feeling more and more strongly that this Is ex- 
actly what happened. The amount of Its difference from 
Chapman's earlier work Is the measure of Shirley's re- 
vision. But the original design and the groundwork of 
the play as it now. stands Is Chapman's.^^^ 

The most adequate and most recent discussion of 
this question, is that by Schipper, in his James Shir- 
ley, Sein Leben und Seine Werke, 191 1. Of the au- 
thorship of Chahot, he says, in part: 

That the play in Its essence cannot come from Shirley, 
will be clear immediately to every attentive reader. 
Against Shirley's authorship speak not alone the pecu- 
liarities of style, e.g., the often long-spun periods, or the 
peculiarities of verse-construction, such as the repeated 
occurrence of rhymed verses, and, on the other hand, the 
long-extended use of prose, but also the content and the 
construction of the action. . . . The question how far 
Shirley may have collaborated in the play Is difficult to 
answer.^^ 

And then, after citing conflicting opinions as to the 



45b Ih'id. 

*^ Schipper, pp. 180-181. 



1:873 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

authorship of particular portions, Schipper con- 
tinues : 

One sees, therefore, how large a part the subjective 
feeling plays here, and how extremely uncertain are its 
tests of authorship. We must content ourselves, there- 
fore, with the fact that, in some way, Shirley collaborated 
in this play, which, however, in respect to its substance 
and its style, bears essentially the characteristic marks of 
Chapman's authorship.^^ 

Upon the details of this discussion, I shall here 
venture no opinion: like Schipper, I have too little 
confidence in subjective feeling as a test of author- 
ship. That Shirley had some hand in this tragedy, 
external evidence appears to show; but that his share 
was considerable may yet be doubted. During the 
twelve months preceding the licensing of Chabot, 
April 29, 1635, Shirley had produced The Example, 
The Opportunity, and The Coronation. What time 
would remain to him for work upon Chabot? The 
history of France, moreover, was Chapman's favorite 
field ;^^ and the play possesses at once an almost clas- 
sical unity of structure and, in the opening act, an 
almost pre-Shaksperian crudity of exposition, that 

*''■ Schipper, p. 182. 

*^ E.g., Bussy D'Ambois, 1607; The Conspiracy and Tragedy of 
Charles, Duke of Byron, 1608; and The Revenge of Bussy 
D'Ambois, 1613. 

[88] 



THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

are both foreign to the work of Shirley. In view of 
these considerations, therefore, and in view of the ap- 
proximate unanimity of opinion among those critics 
who have studied the style of Chapman and of Shir- 
ley, I feel justified in the position that, whatever the 
precise contribution of Shirley to The Tragedy of 
Chabot, its importance is not such as to warrant its 
consideration in a study of Shirley's development as 
a dramatist. From the critical portions of this mono- 
graph, I shall therefore omit all discussion of Chabot. 
But one more play of Shirley's belongs to this his 
second dramatic period: The Duke's Mistress, li- 
censed January i8, 1635/6.^^ Five weeks later, ac- 
cording to Sir Henry Herbert, the play received the 
honor of a presentation at court; for he entered in his 
office-book: 

The Dukes Mistres played at St. James the 22 of Feb. 
1635 [I.e., 1635/6]. Made by Sherley.^^ 

This is the last reference to Shirley or his affairs 
prior to his change of residence to Ireland. In May 
of that year, the outbreak of the plague in London 
occasioned the temporary closing of the theaters ;^^ 
and Shirley, to all appearances, shortly transferred 
his activities to Dublin. 

*^ Malone's Shakspere^ 1821, III, 232, note. 

50 Ibid., 238. 51 ii,i^^^ 239. 

1^91 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

What, then, are our conclusions concerning the 
chronology of Shirley's second dramatic period? 

First, we have accepted Fleay's hypothesis that The 
Arcadia— oi the licensing of which we have no rec- 
ord—was probably first acted on the king's birthday, 
November 19, 1639. Second, we have noted from 
the official records the dates of the licensing of The 
Bewties, The Young Admiral, The Gamester; the 
presentation of The Triumph of Peace; and the li- 
censing of The Example, The Opportunity, The 
Coronation, Chabot, The Lady of Pleasure, and The 
Duke^s Mistress; and we have noted the publication 
or the entry for publication of a second edition of 
The Wedding, and of A Contention for Honor and 
Riches, The Witty Fair One, The Bird in a Cage 
{The Bewties)^ The Triumph of Peace, and The 
Traitor. And, lastly, we have concluded that, al- 
though The Coronation is to be ascribed (despite its 
title-page) to Shirley, yet Chabot Admiral of France 
is probably in too large a part the work of Chapman 
to warrant its consideration in our study of Shirley's 
development as a dramatist. Upon these premises 
we shall base, in Chapters X to XIII inclusive, our 
conclusions concerning Shirley's growth from 1632 
to 1636. 



1:90: 



CHAPTER IV 

SHIRLEY'S THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

I 636-1 642 

jA LTHOUGH Wood, in his AthencE Oxonien- 
I % ses, makes no mention of Shirley's resi- 
JL ^L^ dence in Ireland, the fact that the dramatist 
spent about four years in Dublin is well established. 
That the date of his departure from England is 1636 
— not 1637, as Dyce supposed— is generally accepted. 
Dyce based his argument on a letter from Octavius 
Gilchrist printed in Wilson's History of Merchant 
Taylors^ School,^ in which Gilchrist states that "in 
1637 Shirley went to Ireland, under the patronage of 
George, Earl of Kildare."^ As Dyce, however, im- 
mediately questions the authority of the second part 
of Gilchrist's statement, we may well inquire whether 
it were more accurate with respect to the date 1637. 
On the same page, moreover, on which Dyce quoted 
from this letter, he also quoted— and then failed to 
understand— two lines by Shirley himself in a pro- 



^ Part ii, p. 673. 

2 Dyce, in Works, I, xxxiv. 



DO 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

logue written for Middleton's No Wit, no Help like 
a Woman s on the occasion of its Dublin presenta- 
tion: 

I'll tell you what a poet says : two year 
He has liv^d in Dublin.^ 

As the Dublin presentation of this play occurred in 
1638,^ this passage can mean only that Shirley had 
lived in Dublin since 1636. 

The motive for Shirley's change of residence to 
Dublin is probably to be found in the prevalence of 
the plague in London in 1636, and in the closing of 
the theaters that resulted. Of this, Sir Henry Her- 
bert writes in his ofEce-book : 

At the increase of the plague to 4 within the citty and 
54 in all.— This day the 12 May, 1636, I received a war- 
rant from my lord Chamberlin for the suppressing of 
playes and shews, and at the same time delivered my sev- 
erall warrants to George Wilson for the four companys 
of players, to be served upon them.^ 

Nine months later, Herbert writes again: 

On thursday morning the 23 of February the bill of 
the plague made the number at forty foure, upon which 

2 Works J VI, 493. 

* As shown by reference to the date in Act in, scene i, as revised 
by Shirley. 

^ Malone's Shakspere, 1821, in, 239. 

1:923 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

decrease the king gave the players their liberty, and they 
began the 24 February, 1636 [i.e., 1636/7].^ 

Presently, however, without date, he adds : 

The plague encreasing, the players laye still untill the 
2 of October, when they had leave to play.*^ 

This prevalence of the plague in London and the con- 
sequent closing of the theaters from May 12, 1636, to 
October 2, 1637, may not be the true or the only rea- 
son why Shirley was desirous to leave the capital ; but 
the explanation seems sufficiently probable to be 
made a matter of record. 

In the Irish capital, John Ogilby, for whom Shir- 
ley was destined later to perform much miscellaneous 
work, had opened in 1635 a theater in Werburgh 
Street, the first in Dublin. For this theater, Shirley 
appears to have begun dramatic work, waiting new 
plays and revising old. Among his poetical works, 
we find eight prologues written for plays presented 
before Dublin audiences: "A Prologue to Mr. 
Fletcher's play in Ireland"; "A Prologue to The 
Alchemist, acted there"; "A Prologue to The Irish 
Gent/'; "A Prologue to a play there, called, No Wit 
to a Woman s'\' "A Prologue to another of Master 
Fletcher's plays there"; ''A Prologue to a play there, 

^ Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii, 239. "^ Ibid. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

called The Toy" ; ^'To another play there" ; and '^To 
a play there, called The General!'^ Of Shirley's own 
plays written during his residence in Ireland, we 
shall speak in course. 

Without further introduction to Shirley's third 
dramatic period, I shall now proceed to the details of 
the chronology. To this end, as in former chapters, 
I shall first record those facts which are well known 
or readily established, and shall then consider, one 
after another, the questions in dispute. For example, 
there is the possibility that the date on which Shir- 
ley's romantic comedy The Royal Master was pre- 
sented before the Lord Deputy of Ireland, was not, 
as has been supposed, the evening of New Year's Day 
of 1637/8, but the evening of New Year's Day of 
1636/7; and again it is by no means impossible that 
Shirley's alleged visit to England in 1637 is as unreal 
as his once-accepted resumption of residence in Lon- 
don in 1638. These matters, therefore, belong 
not to our immediate record of established fact, but 
rather to the later pages of this chapter, our discus- 
sion of possibilities. 

Whatever be the date of the presentation of The 
Royal Master, and whatever be the truth as to Shir- 
ley's alleged visit to London, the year 1637 affords 
abundant certainties. The Lady of Pleasure, Hyde 

^ Works, VI, 490-496. 

1:943 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Park, and The Young Admiral were entered in the 
Stationers' Register for W. Cooke and A. Crooke on 
April 13, 1637, and were published in the same year.^ 
Their title-pages read: 

The Lady of Pleasvre. A Comedie, As It was Acted 
by her Majesties Servants, at the private House in Drury 
Lane. Written by James Shirly. London, Printed by 
Tho. Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 
1637.1^ 

Hide Parke a comedie. As it was presented by her 
Majesties Servants, at the private house in Drury Lane. 
Written by James Shirly. London, Printed by Tho. 
Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 1637.^^ 

The Yovng Admirall. As it was presented By her 
Majesties Servants, at the private house in Drury Lane. 
Written by James Shirly. London, Printed by Tho. 
Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 1637.^^ 

In the autumn of the same year, tw^o more of Shir- 
ley's plays v^ere entered in the Stationers' Register 
for the same publishers: The Example, entered Oc- 
tober 18, 1637;^^ ^^d ^^^ Gamester, entered Novem- 
ber 15.^* For these two plays, the title-pages read: 

« 5. 7?.. IV, 355. 

1^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 
" Ibid. 

^2 From the copy belonging to the present writer. 
13 S. R., IV, 369. 

1* Ibid., 373. Not October 18, as stated by Fleay in English Drama, 
II, 233 (not Anglia, viii, 408), and by Nissen. 

1:95: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The Example. As it was presented by her Majesties 
Servants At the private House in Drury-Lane. Written 
by lames Shirly. London. Printed by lohn Norton, for 
Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 1637.^^ 

The Gamester. As it was presented by her Majesties 
Servants At the private House in Drury-Lane. Written 
By lames Shirly. London. Printed by lohn Norton, for 
Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 1637.^^ 

In this same year, 1637, were issued nevv^ editions of 
Love Tricks and The Grateful Servant. Their title- 
pages read: 

The Schoole of Complement. As it was acted by her 
Majesties Servants at the Private house In Drury Lane. — 
Haec placuit semel. By L S. London Printed by L H. 
for Francis Constable, and are to be sold at his shop 
under Saint Martins Church neere Ludgate. 1637.^''' 

The Gratefvll Servant. A Comedie. As it was lately 
presented with good applause in the private House in 
Drury-Lane. By her Majesties Servants. Written by 
James Shirley Gent.— Usque ego postera Crescam laude 
recens. London : Printed by L Okes for William Leake, 
and are to be sold at his shop in Chancery-lane neere the 
Roules. 1637.^^ 

^^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 
i« Ibid. 
1^ Ibid. 

18 Ibid. 

1:96] 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

For the year 1638, the facts of record concern 
chiefly publication and entries for publication. On 
March 13, 1637/8, The Royal Master was entered in 
the Stationers' Register — not for W. Cooke and A. 
Crooke, as Fleay asserts/^ nor for Andrew Cooke & 
Rich. Serger, as Nissen states,^^ but for Master 
Crooke, John Crooke, and Richard Searger.^^ From 
these discrepancies, one infers that Fleay and Nissen 
did not, on this point, consult the Stationers' Register 
itself, but were content to accept the statements of the 
title-pages — sources often at variance with one an- 
other and with the Register. For example, the copies 
of The Royal Master belonging to the late Robert 
Hoe, Esq., give two further statements as to the pub- 
lishers—statements which agree neither with Fleay's 
version nor with Nissen's, nor with the Stationers' 
Register. One reads, '^by Thomas Allot and Ed- 
mond Crooke" ; the other, "by lohn Crooke and Rich- 
ard Serger." In full, these title-pages read as fol- 
lows: 

The Royall Master; As it was Acted in the new Thea- 
ter in Dublin : and Before the Right Honorable the Lord 
Deputie of Ireland, In the Castle. Written by lames 
Shirley. — Fas extera quaerere regna. Printed by T. 

^^ Fleay, in Anglic, vni, 412, and English Drama, li, 233. 
2*^ Nissen, p. 21. 
21 S. R., IV, 385. 

I9ll 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Cotes, and are to be sold by Thomas Allot and Edmond 
Crooke, neere the Castle in Dublin. 1638.^^ 

The Royall Master ; As it was Acted in the new Thea- 
ter in Dublin : and Before the Right Honorable the Lord 
Deputie of Ireland, in the Castle. Written by lames 
Shirley— Fas extera quaerere regna. London, Printed by 
T. Cotes, and are to be sold by lohn Crooke, and Richard 
Serger, at the Grayhound in Pauls Church-yard. 1638.^^ 

These two copies have the same sheets and, except for 
the imprint, the same title-pages. The first was in- 
tended for sale in Dublin, the latter for sale in Lon- 
don. Evidently, each bookseller was supplied with 
copies with a separate imprint, even though he was 
not one of those who joined to enter the book for pub- 
lication. 

On the same day, March 13, 1637/8, Shirley's The 
Duke^s Mistress was entered in the Stationers' Regis- 
ter for W. Cooke and A. Crooke.^^ Nissen notes that, 
upon the title-page of the copy of this play in the 
Hamburg City Library, A. Crooke alone is given as 
publisher.^^ On the other hand, the Hoe copy bears 
the name of William Cooke : 

22 From the copy of the Irish issue of the first edition belonging 
to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

23 From the copy of the London issue of the first edition belonging 
to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

2*5. R.J IV, 385. 25 Nissen, p. 21, note 2. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

The Dvkes MIstris, As it was presented by her Maj- 
esties Servants, At the private House in Drury-Lane. 
Written by lames Shirly. London, Printed by John Nor- 
ton, for William Cooke, 1638.26 

This is but another example of joint entry and sepa- 
rate imprint: its only moral is that knowledge of a 
title-page will not warrant an inference as to the entry 
in the Stationers' Register. 

Six weeks later, on April 23, 1638, The Royal Mas- 
ter was licensed for London presentation.^^ Fleay, in 
1885, asserted that it was ^'licensed for the Queen's 
men at Salisbury Court." ^^ In 1891, he changed this 
to "at Salisbury Court, by the Queen's men, I sup- 
pose." ^^ As no extant record shows for what com- 
pany the play was licensed, Fleay's last two words are 
wisely added; yet his supposition is probably correct: 
so far as we know. The Doubtful Heir and The Im- 
posture, licensed in 1640, were the first plays that 
Shirley gave to the King's men ; and if he had given 
The Royal Master to Beeston's Boys in Drury Lane, 
the play would certainly have been included in the 
list of Cockpit plays, August 10, 1639. The title-page 
of The Royal Master mentions, as we have noted, 
only its presentations "in the new Theater in Dublin : 

2« From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

2^ Malone's Shakspere, 1821, III, 232, note. 

28 Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 408. 

2^ Fleay, in English Drama^ II, 242. 

1:993 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

and Before the Right Honorable the Lord Deputie 
of Ireland, in the Castle." 

In the autumn of the same year, 1638, were entered 
for W. Cooke and A. Crooke, The Ball and Chabot, 
Admiral of France, The date of entry is not, as 
Fleay asserts, December 24, 1638,^*^ but October 24, 
1638.^^ The actual printing of these plays is dated 
1639. Both, according to their title-pages, were the 
joint work of Chapman and Shirley; but the Station- 
ers' Register mentions Shirley only. The Ball we 
have reason to believe is chiefly Shirley's; Chabot, 
except for slight revision, Chapman's.^^ 

In the year 1639, three more of Shirley's plays 
were printed : The Ball and Chabot, which had been 
entered in the Stationers' Register for W. Cooke and 
A. Crooke the previous October; and The Maid's 
Revenge, entered for W. Cooke alone, April 12, 
1639.^^ The title-pages of these three plays read thus : 

The Ball : a Comedy ; As it was presented by her Maj- 
esties Servants, at the private House in Drury Lane. 
Written by George Chapman, and James Shirly. Lon- 
don, Printed by Tho. Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and 
William Cooke. 1639.^'* 

The Tragedie of Chabot Admirall of France: i\s It 

^^ Fleay, In Anglia, Vll, 408; but not in English Drama, II, 234. 
31 S. R., IV, 415. 32 cf. pp. 83-89, supra. 

33 S. R., IV, 437. 

34 From the copy in the British Museum. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

was presented by her Majesties Servants, at the private 
House in Drury Lane. Written by George Chapman, 
and James Shirly. London, Printed by The Cotes, for 
Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 1639.^^ 

The Maides Revenge. A Tragedy. As it hath beene 
Acted with good Applause at the private house in Drury 
Lane, by her Majesties Servants. Written by lames Shir- 
ley Gent. London. Printed by T. C. for William Cooke, 
and are to be sold at his shop at Furnivalls Inne Gate in 
Holbourne. 1639.^^ 

Less than two v^eeks later, on April 25, 1639, four 
more of Shirley's plays were entered in the Stationers' 
Register for W. Cooke and A. Crooke: The Corona- 
tion, The Opportunity, Lovers Cruelty, and The 

^^ From the facsimile title-page in the edition by Lehman, Pub- 
lications of the University of Pennsylvania, 1906. 

2^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. Upon 
the verso of folio A2 of this copy of The Maid's Revenge, is 
printed : 

"A Catalogue of such things as hath beene Published by James 
Shirley Gent. 

"Traytor Example 

Witty Faire one Dukes Mistresse 

Bird in a Cage Ball 

Changes, or Love in a Maze Chabot Admirall of France 

Gratefull Servant Royall Master 

Wedding Schoole of Complements 

Hide Park Contention for Honour and Riches 

Young Admirall Triumph of peace, a Masque 

Lady of Pleasure Maides Revenge" 

Gamester 

This catalogue is an absolutely complete list of all the works of 
Shirley that are known to have been published down to and including 
the year 1639. 

1:100 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Night Walker?'^ The play last named is merely one 
of Fletcher's, revised by Shirley. None of these four 
plays was published until the following year. The 
same is true of the other plays of Shirley entered in 
the Stationers' Register in 1639: The Humorous 
Courtier, entered for W. Cooke alone on July 29;^^ 
and The Arcadia, entered for John Williams and 
Francis Egglesfeild, November 29.^^ On the latter 
date, Williams and Egglesfeild also entered Love's 
Cruelty; but to this, Cooke and Crooke had a prior 
claim.^^ 

The Humorous Courtier, mentioned in the fore- 
going paragraph, had never been licensed under that 
title; but, as the plot turns on the question of who 
shall become the Duke of Mantua, and as the suc- 
cessful suitor proves to be the Duke of Parma in dis- 
guise, we are accustomed to assume that the play 
entered and printed as The Humorous Courtier is 
identical with the play licensed as The Duke, May 
17, 1631.^^ I find no ground, however, for identify- 

^'^ S. R., IV, 438. Nissen, p. 21, asserts t\i?it Love's Cruelty was pub- 
lished by A. Crooke alone. Perhaps he is quoting not the Station- 
ers' Register but a title-page. 

^^ Ibid., 447. Fleay, in Anglia, Vlll, 409, and in English Drama, II, 
234, misprints July 29 as July 20- 

^^ Ibid., 465. Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 412, twice misprints "Eggles- 
feild" as "Egglestone" ; and Nissen, p. 21, spells it "Egglesseild." 

*o Cf. S. R., IV, 438, with S. R., iv, 465. 

*^ Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 406, and in English Drama, II, 237, mis- 
prints this date as May 7 for May 17. Cf. Malone's Shakspere, 
1 82 1, III, 232, note. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

ing either The Humorous Courtier or The Duke 
with the play entitled The Conceited Duke, men- 
tioned in the list of "Cockpitt playes appropried," 
August lo, 1639.^^ Were The Conceited Duke the 
play licensed as by Shirley, it would be likely to stand 
with his fourteen other plays, which are grouped in 
the middle of the list. Instead, it stands next to the 
last, among plays of various authorship. Were The 
Conceited Duke the play published as The Humor- 
ous Courtier, we should expect to find the disguised 
Duke of Parma a man conspicuous for his conceits. 
Instead, we find him the sanest of the suitors. For 
these reasons, I account Fleay's identification of The 
Conceited Duke with The Duke of Shirley far from 
warranted; but I account his identification of The 
Duke and The Humorous Courtier wholly proba- 
ble.^^ 

The only other fact of record for this year 1639, is 
that on October 30, Shirley's play The Gentleman 
of Venice was licensed for London presentation.^^ 
When the play was printed, sixteen years later, it was 
described on its title-page as "Presented at the Private 
house in Salisbury Court by her Majesties Ser- 
vants." ^^ This is the only one of Shirley's plays of 

*2 Malone's Shakspere, 1821, ill, 1 59-1 60, note. 

*^ Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 406, and in English Drama, 11, 237. 

** Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii, 232, note. 

^^ From the title-page of the copy belonging to the present writer. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

which we know positively that it was presented at 
Salisbury Court: in the case of The Politician, we 
have the assertion of the title-page that it was there 
presented; but, as no record of the license is extant, 
we must admit the possibility that the title-page is 
incorrect: in the case of The Royal Master, we have 
a record of the license; but, as the play was printed 
before it was put upon the stage, we have no title- 
page to tell us at what theater it was presented. Prob- 
ably, however, all three of these plays were presented 
by the Queen's men at Salisbury Court. 

Early in the year 1640, there were entered upon the 
Stationers' Register the titles of two plays otherwise 
unknown : ''The Tragedy of Saint Albons, by Master 
James Shirley," entered for W. Cooke, February 14, 
1639/40;^^ and ''Looke to the Ladie, by James Shir- 
ley," entered for Williams and Egglesfeild, March 
II, 1639/40.^^ Why these plays were never published 
does not appear. 

Some six weeks later, on April 28, 1640, two more 
plays, St. Patrick for Ireland and The Constant 
Maid, were entered in the Stationers' Register for R. 
Whitaker.^^ Neither of these had been licensed for 

*6 5. i?., IV, 472. 

*^ Ibid., 475. Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 409, misprints this date as 
March 10 for March 11; on page 412, moreover, he gives the pub- 
lisher's name as "Egglestone." 

*^ Ibid., 482. Fleay, in Anglia, vili, 412, misprints the date of St. 
Patrick as October 28 for April 28. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

London presentation; they are supposed to have been 
written for the Dublin theater. 

Of the plays that had been entered in the Station- 
ers' Register in the previous year, The Humorous 
Courtier, Lovers Cruelty, The Arcadia, The Oppor- 
tunity, and The Coronation were all published in 
1640. Possibly to this list we ought to add The 
Maid^s Revenge, which bears upon its title-page the 
date 1639. As the year 1639 (Old Style) did not end 
until March 25, and as the play contains a dedication 
that may have been added by Shirley in the spring of 
1639/40 rather than at the time when the play was 
entered in the Stationers' Register, April 12, 1639, it 
is possible that the date on the title-page really means 
1639/40. The title-page of this play. The Maid^s 
Revenge, we quoted with those of the publications of 
1639.*^ The title-pages of the plays of 1640 are as 
follows : 

The Hvmorovs Covrtier. A Comedy, As it hath been 
presented with good applause at the private house in 
Drury-Lane. Written by lames Shirley Gent. London. 
Printed by T. C. for William Cooke, and are to be sold 
by James Becket, in the Inner Temple. 1640.^^ 

Loves Crveltie. A Tragedy, As it was presented by 
her Majesties Servants, at the private House In Drury 

'*^ See p. lOi, supra. 

^^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Lane. Written by James Shirley Gent. London, Printed 
by Tho. Cotes, for Andrew Crooke. 1640.^^ 

V A Pastorall called the Arcadia. Acted by her Maj- 
esties Servants at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. Written 
by lames Shirly Gent. London, Printed by L D. for lohn 
Williams, and F. Eglesfeild and are to be sould at the 
signe of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard. 1640.^^ 

The Opportvnitie a comedy, As it was presented by 
her Majesties Servants; at the private House in Drury 
Lane. Written by lames Shirley. London. Printed by 
Thomas Cotes for Andrew Crooke, and Will. Cooke, and 
are to be sold at the Signe of the Greene Dragon in Pauls 
Church-yard. 1 640.^^ 

The Coronation a comedy. As it was presented by 
her Majesties Servants at the private House in Drury 
Lane. Written by John Fletcher. Gent. London, Printed 
by Tho. Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke, 
and are to be sold at the signe of the Greene Dragon, in 
Pauls Church-yard. 1640.^^ 

Sometime in this same year 1640, w^ere published 
also St. Patrick for Ireland and The Constant Maid, 
entered, as we have already noted, on April 28. Their 
title-pages are as follows : 

^^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 
52 Ibid. 

5^ From the copy belonging to the present writer — identical with 
that belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

5* From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

St. Patrick for Ireland. The first Part. Written by 
James Shirley. London, Printed by J. Raworth, for R. 
Whitaker. 1640.^^ 

The Constant Maid. A Comedy. Written by James 
Shirley. London, Printed by J. Raworth, for R. Whita- 
ker, 1640.^^ 

The two plays of Shirley that appear to have re- 
ceived London presentation in this year, are The 
Doubtful Heir, licensed June i, 1640,^'^ and The Im- 
posture, licensed November 10.^^ Both of these, ac- 
cording to their title-pages of 1652, were acted at the 
private house in Black Friars, i.e., by the King's men. 
The significance of Shirley's change, at this time, 
from the Queen's men to the King's, I shall presently 
discuss. 

Sometime in this year 1640, most probably in the 
spring, Shirley returned from Dublin and resumed 
his residence in London. As the precise date of his 
return is one of the debatable points in the Shirleian 
chronology, I reserve its detailed consideration for 
the latter portion of this chapter, and here proceed to 
record such matters as are certain. 

For the year 1641, all that we know of Shirley con- 
cerns two plays then licensed for presentation: The 

^^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

5« Ibid. 

^^ Malone's Shakspere, 1 82 1, in, 232, note. 

58 Ibid. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Politique Father, May 26, 1641,^^ and The Cardinal, 
November 25.^^ The former was never published 
under that title ; but, as we have shown in Chapter II, 
in our discussion of the identity of The Brothers of 
1626, we have every reason to suppose that The Pol- 
itique Father of 1641 has survived as the play men- 
tioned as The Brothers in the Lord Chamberlain's 
list of August 7, 1641, and published under that name 
in 1652. That play, according to its title-page, was 
acted ^^at the private House in Black Fryers. "^^ The 
Cardinal, according to its title-page of 1652, was also 
acted by his Majesty's Servants. ^^ In the prologue, 
Shirley ventured the opinion that "this play might 
rival with his best";^^ and in the dedication, 1652, he 
declared it to be, in his conception, the best of his 
flock.^^ Certainly, it shares with The Traitor the 
honor of being his ablest production in romantic 
tragedy. 

The year 1642, which ends Shirley's career as 
dramatist, was marked by but two plays : The Sisters, 
licensed April 26,^^ and The Court Secret, never li- 
censed. The former, according to its title-page of 

^® Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii, 232, note. 

«o Ibid. 

^^ From the copy belonging to the present writer. 

«2 Ibid. 

^^ Works, V, 275. 

6* Ibid., 273. 

^5 Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii, 232, note. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

1652, was "acted at the private House in Black 
Fryers" ;^^ the latter, according to its title-page of 

1653, was "Never Acted, But prepared for the Scene 
at Black-Friers."^^ Thus concludes Shirley's third 
and last dramatic period. 

From the certainties of Shirleian chronology for 
this third dramatic period, we pass now to questions 
in dispute. What was the date of the presentation of 
The Royal Master before the Lord Deputy in Dub- 
lin Castle? Did Shirley visit London in the spring 
of 1636/7? Did he visit London in the spring of 
1638/9? At what time did Shirley resume his resi- 
dence in London? What did Shirley mean by writ- 
ing, in the dedication of The Maid^s Revenge, "Some 
say I have lost my preferment"? And, finally, must 
we assume, with Fleay and Nissen, that the reason 
why Shirley, on his return, ceased writing for the 
Queen's men and began writing for the King's, was 
that the Queen's men, during his absence, had pub- 
lished his plays without his knowledge and consent? 
These several questions we shall in turn consider. 



First among these six problems, is the question: 
What was the date of the presentation of The Royal 



®^ From the copy belonging to the present writer. 
67 Ibid. 



1:1093 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Master before the Lord Deputy in Dublin Castle? 
The evidence in the case consists of the entry in the 
Stationers' Register, on March 13, 1637/8 ; the licens- 
ing of the play (for presentation) on April 23, 1638; 
and the publication of the play sometime within the 
year 1638 with a title-page, dedication, and epilogue, 
all bearing upon the date of the Dublin presentation. 
The title-page, as we have noted, asserts that the play 
was "Acted in the new Theater in Dublin: and Be- 
fore the Right Honorable the Lord Deputie of Ire- 
land, in the Castle" ; the epilogue is "as it was spoken 
to the Lord Deputy on New-Year's-Day, at night, by 
way of vote, congratulating the New Year";^^ and 
the dedication, which was presented to George, Earl 
of Kildare, reads as follows : 

My Lord: 

It was my happiness, being a stranger In this kingdom, 
to kiss your lordship's hands, to which your nobleness, and 
my own ambition encouraged me ; nor was It without jus- 
tice to your name, to tender the first fruits of my observ- 
ance to your lordship, whom this Island acknowledgeth 
her first native ornament and top branch of honour. Be 
pleased now, my most honourable lord, since my affairs in 
England hasten my departure and prevent my personal 
attendance, that something of me may be honoured to wait 
upon you In my absence : this poem. 'TIs new, and never 

*^ Works, IV, 187. 

i:"o:] 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

yet personated ; but expected with the first, when the Eng- 
lish stage shall be recovered from her long silence, and 
her now languishing scene changed into a welcome return 
of wits and men. And when, by the favour of the winds 
and sea, I salute my country again, I shall report a story 
of the Irish honour, and hold myself not meanly fortunate 
to have been written and received 

The humblest of your lordship's servants, 

James Shirley.^^ 

This dedication, it will be noted, contributes four 
facts to our stock of information : ( i ) that The Royal 
Master was Shirley's first composition after coming 
under the patronage of the Earl of Kildare; (2) that, 
at the time. when Shirley wrote this dedication, the 
play had not been acted— was "new, and never yet 
personated"; (3) that, at that time, Shirley was on 
the point of leaving Ireland — his affairs in Eng- 
land hastened his departure, and he hoped, by the 
favor of winds and sea, to salute his country again ; 
and (4) that, when he penned the dedication, the 
English stage had not yet recovered from its long si- 
lence— i.e., that the date of writing was some time 
after May 12, 1636, the date when the theaters closed 
because of the plague, but prior to October 2, 1637, 
the date of the reopening. In view of these four facts, 
where shall we place the presentation of The Royal 

«^ Works, IV, 103. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Master before the Lord Deputy? Shall it be on New 
Year's Day of 161,6/ j or on New Year's Day of 
1637/8? 

From the evidence here cited, Fleay^^ and Nis- 
sen^^ have inferred that the presentation of The 
Royal Master "Before the Right Honorable the Lord 
Deputie" occurred on January i, 1637/8. Nissen 
deems it probable, for example, that Shirley paid a 
visit to London in March or April, 1637, lured by 
some report of the reopening of the theaters on Feb- 
ruary 23 ; that he brought with him the manuscript of 
The Royal Master with the dedication already writ- 
ten ; that he left it in England to be printed ; that its 
publication was then deferred (as we know) until the 
spring of 1638; and that meanwhile, on January i, 
1637/8, the play was presented before the Lord Dep- 
uty at the Castle.'^^ 

This hypothesis is entirely plausible; yet it in- 
volves two assumptions that we may well avoid : the 
assumption, namely, that in the last few weeks before 
the play issued from the press in the spring of 1638, 
Shirley despatched from Dublin a copy of the New 
Year's epilogue and a new title-page mentioning the 
production of the play in Dublin ; and the still greater 

"^^ Fleay, in Anglia, VIII, 408. 
^^ Nissen, p. 18. 
'^^Ibid., pp. 18-19. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

assumption that Shirley would give The Royal Mas- 
ter to a publisher before it had been staged. 

Both of these difficulties we may avoid if we but 
place the New Year's presentation on January i, 
1636/7, instead of 1637/8; i.e., if we suppose that the 
presentation occurred not after Shirley's visit to Lon- 
don but before. Suppose that Shirley wrote his dedi- 
cation, and sent it with the manuscript of his play to 
the Earl of Kildare sometime in December, 1636. He 
might then, with far more likelihood, call it the 
"first" fruits of his observance ; yet he could still say 
that, since the previous May, the English stage had 
been languishing in "long" silence ; that the play was 
never yet personated; and that his affairs in England 
hastened his departure. Suppose then that, either 
with or without the influence of Kildare, Shirley's 
play was presented before the Lord Deputy at the 
Castle, on January i, 1636/7. For this presentation, 
Shirley would write the epilogue ; and the play, with 
title-page, dedication, and epilogue complete, he 
could then take with him immediately to London. 
There the hope of the reopening of the theaters might 
well have detained him until after February 23 ; and 
in this time he could have arranged for the publica- 
tion of the three plays that were entered in the Sta- 
tioners' Register on April 13, 1637, to each of which, 
as we know, he prefixed a dedication. Then — possi- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

bly for the convenience of the London actors, possibly 
for the convenience of the publishers— the printing 
of The Royal Master waited until the spring of 1638. 
Such is our chronology if we assume that the pres- 
entation before Strafford was on January i, 1636/7; 
a chronology more plausible than that made neces- 
sary by the date usually assumed. That Fleay and 
Nissen are wrong in assuming the year to be 1637/8, 
we cannot prove; but more in keeping with all the 
facts we know, is the earlier date, 1636/7. 



II 



For this year 1637, one further problem remains to 
be considered : Did Shirley visit London in that year? 
In our hypothetical chronologies for The Royal Mas- 
ter, we allowed for such a possibility in the spring of 
1637; but whether Shirley made such a visit, we do 
not surely know. We know only that, when he wrote 
the dedication lately quoted, his affairs in England 
hastened his departure. Nissen offers in evidence the 
fact that, on April 13, 1637, three of Shirley's plays 
— The Lady of Pleasure, Hyde Park, and The 
Young Admiral— wevQ entered in the Stationers' 
Register for W. Cooke and A. Crooke;"^^ and the 
fact that each of these plays as published bears Shir- 
ks S. R.. IV, 355. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

ley's dedication. "^^ Equally tenable, however, is 
Fleay's hypothesis : that the presence of these dedica- 
tions indicates not that Shirley was in London on 
April 13, 1637, but rather that he had prepared for 
the printer both his manuscripts and his dedication 
before leaving for Ireland in 1636.'^^ In none of these 
dedications does Shirley refer to Ireland, or to his life 
in Dublin. That Shirley, late in 1636 or early in 
1637, intended soon to visit England, his dedication 
of The Royal Master shows; that he ultimately ful- 
filled his purpose, we cannot demonstrate. 



Ill 



The third of our six problems concerning Shirley's 
last dramatic period, is the question whether the poet 
visited London in the spring of 1639. If the fact that 
the three plays entered in the Stationers' Register on 
April 13, 1637, were prefaced with dedications, 
means that Shirley was personally in London on that 
date, then the fact that The Maid's Revenge, entered 
on April 12, 1639, has likewise a dedication, means 
that on that date Shirley was again in London. 
Moreover, one might argue that the dedication itself 
supports this supposition. "It is," wrote Shirley, of 



^* Nissen, p. 18. 

^^ Fleay, in Angliaj viii, 408. 



n"5] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

the play, "a Tragedy which received encouragement 
and grace on the English stage ; and though it come 
late to the impression, it was the second birth in this 
kind, which I dedicated to the scene. ... It is many 
years since I saw these papers, which make haste to 
kiss your hand."^^ This passage— especially the 
word "papers"— suggests the hypothesis that Shir- 
ley had discovered either among his own manuscripts 
or among those belonging to the Cockpit company, 
a copy of The Maid's Revenge, first played in 1625/6, 
and had caused it to be entered, April 12, 1639, for 
publication. All this, however, is but supposition: 
the passage quoted fits almost as well a second hy- 
pothesis presently to be offered; and as for the fact 
that the play has a dedication— that is no proof of 
the personal presence of the dramatist in London. In 
short, Shirley may have visited England in the spring 
of 1639 ; but the evidence available does not prove the 
visit. 

The second hypothesis accounting for the presence 
of the dedication with The Maid's Revenge, is that it 
resulted not from a visit to London about April 12, 
1639, but from Shirley's return in the spring of 
1639/40. The date "1639" upon the title-page means 
—translated into New Style— that the play was pub- 
lished between March 25, 1639, and March 25, 1640. 

'^^ Dedication, in Works , I, loi. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

The dedication, therefore, may have been supplied 
not just subsequent to the former date, but rather just 
prior to the latter. This second hypothesis we should 
keep in mind as we consider our fourth problem, the 
date of Shirley's resumption of residence in London. 



IV 



On what date did Shirley end his Dublin residence? 
The date of his return to London appears to fall 
somewhere within the year 1640. Dyce, by carelessly 
assuming that the dedication to The Royal Master 
was penned, as it was printed, in 1638, and that Shir- 
ley's purposed "departure" from Ireland, mentioned 
in that dedication, was for permanent residence 
rather than for a business visit, gives the impression 
that Shirley's Dublin period terminated in 1638.''''^ 
That this cannot be the case is evident, as Fleay has 
pointed out,"^^ from the opening lines of the pro- 
logue to The Imposture, licensed November 10, 
1640: 

He [the poet] knows not what to write; fears 

what to say. 
He has been stranger long to the English scene. "^^ 

'^'^ Dyce, in Works, I, xxxiv-xxxv. 

■^^ Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 409, and in English Drama, 11, 246. 

78 Works, V, 181. 

n"73 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley would not have written thus in 1640 if he had 
been resident in London since 1638. Moreover, in his 
dedication of The Opportunity (entered in the Sta- 
tioners' Register April 25, 1639, but not published 
until 1640), Shirley thus addresses his traveling com- 
panion, Captain Richard Owen : 

This Poem, at my return with you from another king- 
dom (wherein I enjoyed, as your employments would per- 
mit, the happiness of your knowledge and conversation), 
emergent from the press, and prepared to seek entertain- 
ment abroad, I took boldness thus far to direct to your 
name and acceptance. . . .^^ 

Since this play, which was "emergent from the press" 
on Shirley's return from Ireland, bears the date 1640, 
we must infer that Shirley returned either in 1640, or, 
at earliest, late in 1639 (Old Style), i.e., in February 
or March of 1639/40. The fact that The Maid's Re- 
venge, which bears the date 1639, has, like The Op- 
portunity of 1640, a dedication, may be best ex- 
plained on the assumption that Shirley returned to 
London early in the spring of 1639/40. Such an 
assumption, moreover, harmonizes well with the fact 
that The Doubtful Heir, licensed as Rosania June i, 
1640, was presented not by her Majesty's Servants, 
but by the King's men at Black Friars : a change of 
such consequence as to indicate (it would seem) the 

^^ Works, III, 369. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

presence of the dramatist. The assumption harmo- 
nizes also with the supposition that Shirley's poem 
To the E\^arl~\ of S\_trafford~\ upon his Recovery ^^ 
has reference to Strafford's illness of the spring of 
1640.^^ Nissen argues that "from the circumstance 
that the plays St. Patrick for Ireland and The Con- 
stant Maid, entered in the Stationers' Register on the 
28th of April, 1640, appeared without dedication, 
one may be inclined to draw the conclusion that he 
[Shirley] had not yet settled again in the capital of 
England." ^^ But although the presence of a dedica- 
tion in these plays might indicate that Shirley had 
some hand in their publication, the absence of a dedi- 
cation does not indicate that they were published 
without his knowledge and consent— much less does 
it indicate that Shirley had not arrived in London. 
All the evidence seems to warrant the conclusion that 
Shirley arrived in London not later than the opening 
weeks of 1640, perhaps even before the twenty- fifth 
of March, the date when the year (Old Style) legally 
began. 



Our fifth problem for Shirley's third dramatic pe- 
riod is the significance of a passage in his dedication 

81 Works, VI, 428. 

82 Nissen, p. 20. 

83 Ibid. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

to The Maid's Revenge: "I never affected the ways 
of flattery: some say I have lost my preferment by not 
practising that Court sin."^^ Dyce, by quoting this 
passage early in his Account,^^ leads the casual reader 
to suppose that Shirley's words refer to something in 
the first part of his career— as if they dated from the 
original presentation of The Maid's Revenge, li- 
censed February 9, 1625/6, not from its publication 
in 1639 or 1639/40. Such, however, cannot be their 
application. They must refer rather to a loss of pre- 
ferment subsequent, at earliest, to the years 1633 ^^^ 
1634, when, as author of The Young Admiral, The 
Gamester, and The Triumph of Peace, Shirley cer- 
tainly was high in favor. Shall we suppose that Shir- 
ley's removal to Ireland in 1636 and his continuance 
there even after the reopening of the London theaters 
in October, 1637, were due not alone to the ravages of 
the plague in London and to the opportunity offered 
by John Ogilby in Dublin, but also to loss of prefer- 
ment at court? Had Shirley's satires upon fashion- 
able society offended others than Sir Henry Herbert? 
Why should the sometime favorite of king and queen 
be drudging for Ogilby in Dublin? 

In support of such a possibility, we may cite two 
bits of documentary evidence: Herbert's entry con- 

^* Dedication to The Maid's Revenge j in Works, I, lOi. 
®^ Dyce, in Works, I, viii-ix. 

1:120;] 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

cerning The Ball, November i8, 1632; and Shirley's 
allusion to the same matter in The Lady of Pleasure, 
licensed October 15, 1635. The first of these (al- 
ready quoted in our second chapter) is from the 
office-book of the Master of the Revels : 

18 Nov. 1632. In the play of The Ball, written by 
Sherley, and acted by the Queens players, ther were divers 
personated so naturally, both of lords and others of the 
court, that I took it ill, and would have forbidden the 
play, but that BIston promlste many things which I found 
faulte withall should be left out, and that he would not 
suffer It to be done by the poett any more, who deserves 
to be punlsht; and the first that offends In this kind, of 
poets or players, shall be sure of publique punlshment.^^ 

Three years later, with evident reference to The 
Ball, Shirley inserted in The Lady of Pleasure the 
following lines : 

Another game you have which consumes more 
Your fame than purse : your revels In the night. 
Your meetings calFd The Ball, to which repair. 
As to the court of pleasure, all your gallants 
And ladles, thither bound by a subpoena 
Of Venus, and small Cupid's high displeasure. 
'TIs but the Family of Love translated 
Into more costly sin ! There was a play on't ; 
And, had the poet not been bribed to a modest 

^* Malone's Shakspere, 1821, ill, 231-232. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Expression of your antic gambols in't, 
Some darks had been discovered, and the deeds too. 
In time he may repent, and make some blush 
To see the second part danced on the stage.*"^ 

Thus runs the play licensed for presentation in the 
autumn of 1635. In the spring of 1636, Shirley took 
up his residence in Dublin. Have we, in these lines, 
an explanation of his departure, and of his words in 
1639: "I never affected the ways of flattery: some say 
I have lost my preferment by not practising that 
Court sin"? 

On the other hand, may we not rather assume that 
the loss or alleged loss of preferment— ''some say 
I have lost my preferment"— has reference not to 
London but to Dublin? Had Shirley, for the mo- 
ment, offended either Strafford or Kildare? Was 
Shirley returning to London because in Ireland he 
had lost his preferment? These questions I must be 
content to leave unanswered. 



VI 

Our final problem for Shirley's third dramatic pe- 
riod is to discover why Shirley ceased to write for her 
Majesty's Servants, and prepared his last six plays 

^"^ The Lady of Pleasure, I, f ; Works, iv, 9. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

for the King's men. Concerning this matter, Fleay 
wrote in 1885: 

It appears that a dozen plays were printed during 
Shirley's absence in Ireland undedicated by him and with- 
out his supervision. . . . Whether he was annoyed, as I 
think, that the Queen's men should have made his writ- 
ings public in this way or for some other reason, he wrote 
no more for them ; but joined the King's company.^^ 

By 1 89 1, Fleay's conjecture has become a certainty. 
He writes : 

The Queen's men in the plague trouble had evidently 
been selling Shirley's plays without his knowledge or con- 
sent; and, worse still, they had sold Lovers Cruelty twice 
over, and The Coronation as a play of Fletcher's. . . . 
No wonder that Shirley left writing for a company that 
had treated his works in this way during his absence.^^ 

And in 1901, Nissen states the assumption still more 
positively : 

Upon his arrival in London, our author was to make 
the unpleasant discovery that during his absence no less 
than twelve of his plays had been published by others. 
The Queen's men had published not only the pieces played 
in the Cockpit Theatre before his departure to Dublin, 
not yet edited by him, but had also given to the press two 

®^ Fleay, in Anglia, viil, 409. 

^^ Fleay, in English Drama, II, 243-244. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

of those dramatic works sent back from Ireland, St, Pat- 
rick for Ireland and The Constant Maid — two dramas 
which evidently they had not acted at all. All these plays 
appeared, therefore, without dedications; and, since the 
author did not supervise the printing, the text in many of 
them is very inaccurate. . . . The Queen's men had not 
only sold the dramas of Shirley in their possession without 
his knowledge and approval — Lovers Cruelty even twice; 
namely to the firm of W. Cooke and A. Crooke, as well 
as to Williams & Egglesfeild— they had, what is perhaps 
still worse, sold The Coronation as a work of Fletcher's 
and Look to the Lady, a piece which it is highly probable 
was not written by him, as his own. That our poet was 
indignant over such treatment, one can imagine. He 
broke off his relations with the players of the Queen. 
The last of the dramas composed and acted in Ireland, 
Rosania, which he brought with him to England in the 
year 1640, he offered to the King's Servants playing in 
the Black Friars and Globe Theatre. This company, 
whose playwright he became when Heywood ceased to 
write for the stage, brought out his later dramatic works.^^ 

What is this argument of Fleay and Nissen? Dur- 
ing Shirley's residence in Ireland, twelve of his plays 
(including Chabot and The Night Walker as^ by 
Shirley) were published in London without his dedi- 
cation : therefore these plays were published without 
his knowledge or consent: therefore he had grounds 
for anger — anger against the Queen's players: for 

^® Nissen, pp. 20-21. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

this reason he ceased writing for the Queen's players, 
and wrote thenceforth only for the players of the 
King. 

Let us examine certain of the links in this long 
argument. We might, perhaps, inquire whether ab- 
sence of dedication is adequate proof of absence of 
knowledge or consent to publication ; but we will let 
that point pass. Let us grant that all twelve of these 
plays were put in print unknown to Shirley. Does 
it follow that he had grounds for anger? Was Shir- 
ley the man that had been wronged? In short, was 
the playwright the owner of the play for the purposes 
of publication? 

One document that has survived to us from the year 
1637, appears to uphold a different interpretation. 
In a long letter directed by the Lord Chamberlain, 
Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, to the 
Master and Wardens of the Company of Printers and 
Stationers, dated June 10, 1637, the Lord Chamber- 
lain distinctly states that the companies of players 
owned plays, "bought and provided at very dear and 
high rates"; that the printing of these plays without 
the authority of the players resulted not only in 
"much prejudice'' to the actors, but in "much corrup- 
tion" to the books, "to the injury and disgrace of the 
authors"; and that, since "some copies of plays be- 
longing to the King and Queen's servants, the play- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ers, . . . having been lately stolen, or gotten from 
them by indirect means, are now attempted to be 
printed," the Lord Chamberlain commands that the 
Stationers see that no play be printed without the 
express permission of the company of players con- 
cerned.^^ In a similar letter, dated August 7, 1641, 
the Earl of Essex, successor to the Earl of Pembroke 
and Montgomery in the office of Lord Chamberlain, 
is equally specific.^^* If the Lord Chamberlain's or- 
der be good law, then not Shirley but the company of 
actors would be the aggrieved party in case of the 
unauthorized publication of a play. 

But let us waive this point also. Let us assume that 
Shirley was justly angry at the publication of his 
plays without his knowledge or consent. Against 
whom should he be angry? Against the Queen's 
players, say Fleay and Nissen. 

The objection to this assumption is that the com- 
pany of her Majesty's Servants who, during Shirley's 
residence in Ireland, presented certain of his plays 
at Salisbury Court, and whom he abandoned in favor 
of the King's men on his return from Dublin, is not 
the company of the same name that, before Shirley's 

®^ This letter is printed, wholly or in part, in Chalmers's Apology, 
PP- 5I3-5I4> note v; Collier's English Dramatic Poetry, li, 83-84, 
note; and Malone's Shakspere, 1821, iii, 160-161, note. 

^^* Reprinted by Chambers in The Malone Society Collections, 
Parts IV & V, pp. 364-369. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Dublin period, brought out his plays at the Private 
House in Drury Lane; and there is no evidence that 
the new company inherited any of Shirley's manu- 
scripts from the original company. 

Down to the year 1637, all of Shirley's plays with 
one exception ^^ had been acted by the Queen's men 
under Christopher Beeston, acting in the Private 
House in Drury Lane, otherwise known as the "Phoe- 
nix" and the "Cockpit." When the plague of 1636- 
1637 occasioned the long closing of the theaters, 
Christopher and William Beeston organized a com- 
pany of boys for acting plays at court.^^ It was with 
such a company, not with the adult "Queen's men," 
that the Beestons reopened the Cockpit on October 
2, 1637. ^s a result. Turner, Perkins, Sumner, and 
Sherlock, of the old company, united with the best 
of the former Revels Company at Salisbury Court.^* 
This new organization under Turner,^° adopted the 

^^ See the title-pages in the Bibliography. The exception is ChangeSj 
or Love in a Maze, acted "at the Private House in Salisbury Court, 
by the Company of His Majesties Revels." 

®^ See Herbert's entries for February 7 and 14, 1636/7, in Malone's 
Shakspere, 1 82 1, III, 239. 

^* See Herbert's entries of October 2, 1637, quoted by Malone, 
Shakspere, 1821, III, 240. 

^^ Turner's managership is inferred from the following entry quoted 
in Chalmers's Apology, p. 511, note, from a manuscript book in the 
Lord Chamberlain's office: 

"6th March 1639/40— A warrant for £80, unto Henry Turner &c. 
the Queen's players, for seven plays by them acted at court in 1638, 
& 1639; whereof £20 for one play at Richmond." 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

name of "her Majesty's Servants." They presented 
Shirley's The Gentleman of Venice, and, presumably. 
The Royal Master and The Politician; but they were 
not her Majesty's Servants of the Cockpit, the Phoe- 
nix, the Private House in Drury Lane. The old 
company had ceased to be.^^ 

Nor can it be shown that the new company at Salis- 
bury Court inherited, from its namesake of the Cock- 
pit, any of the plays of Shirley. The number of plays 
by Shirley acted before he went to Dublin, is twenty- 
three. Of these, the Lord Chamberlain's list of Au- 
gust lo, 1639, names fifteen as the property of Wil- 
liam Beeston as governor of the young company at the 
Cockpit.^^ Among these fifteen, stand five plays 
which Fleay and Nissen assert were sold to the pub- 
lishers by the Queen's men ! Are we to assume that 
the actors of Salisbury Court stole these five plays 
from the Cockpit children to sell to the stationers? 

And what grounds has Nissen for the assumption 
that the Queen's men "had also given to the press two 
of those dramatic works sent back from Ireland, St. 
Patrick for Ireland and The Constant Maid^^? How 
do we know that the Queen's men ever had these plays 
in their possession? 

®^ On the history of the several companies mentioned, see especially, 
Murray, English Dramatic Companies. 

®^ The MS. is quoted by Collier, English Dramatic Poetry, II, 92, 
note. Cf. Malone's Shakspere, 1821, III, 159-160, note. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

And what of the plays that were acted, or presuma- 
bly were acted, at Salisbury Court? Were they like- 
wise published without Shirley's knowledge and con- 
sent? On the contrary. The Royal Master, The Gen- 
tleman of Venice, and The Politician — the only plays 
assignable on any ground to Salisbury Court— all 
were published with dedications signed by Shirley: 
two of them after a wait of over fifteen years. 

In short, even if we assume that the twelve plays 
published without dedication during Shirley's ab- 
sence, were published without his knowledge and 
consent — an assumption of the utmost liberality — and 
even if we assume further that, in such publication, 
Shirley was the man aggrieved— an assumption that 
appears contrary to the Lord Chamberlain's letter of 
June lo, 1637— we ^^^ 7^^ unable to discover why 
Shirley's anger should be directed against the Queen's 
men of Salisbury Court; for, of the plays of Shirley 
known to have been in their possession, not one was 
published without Shirley's dedication, and of the 
twelve plays published without dedication, not one 
can be shown to have been in their possession. Under 
these circumstances, let us not accuse her Majesty's 
Servants of literary larceny. 

But, one asks, if the Salisbury Court men had not 
made Shirley angry, presumably by disposing of his 
manuscripts, why then did he sever his connection 

1:129] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

with them and begin writing for the King's men at 
Black Friars? 

The answer, it seems to me, is to be found in the 
changes which the old "Queen's men" had under- 
gone in Shirley's absence. He returned from Ireland 
in the spring of 1640, to find that his old manager, 
Christopher Beeston of the Phoenix— the Cockpit — 
the Private House in Drury Lane — had transferred 
his attention to a company of boys, and, presently, 
had been superseded in the management of these 
young players by William Beeston, who, in turn, was 
about to be superseded, June 27, 1640, by William 
Davenant.^^ Shirley returned to find that the old 
"Queen's men" that he had known, had ceased to be; 
and that the name "her Majesty's Servants" was now 
borne by a new organization under Turner, an or- 
ganization consisting of four of the old "Queen's 
men" joined with the best of the former Revels Com- 
pany of Salisbury Court. This new company had 
presented, during Shirley's residence in Dublin, his 
Gentleman of Venice, and probably also The PgHU- 
cian and The Royal Master; but it could have had 
for Shirley no especial interest. These actors were 
not the Queen's men of the Cockpit in Drury Lane, 
the players under Beeston who had produced almost 

^^ See the document quoted by Collier in English Dramatic Poetry, 
II, loi, note. 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

every play of Shirley from the day when the modest 
schoolmaster of St. Albans had ''retired to the Me- 
tropolis, lived in Greys inn, and set up for a play- 
maker." They were merely a new company of actors 
under a new manager, who, during Shirley's absence 
in Ireland, had presented three plays that he had sent 
to them. Why should he continue to write for this 
new company? Why should he not seek a position 
with a better company? The King's men were well 
established at Black Friars and the Globe. With the 
death of Massinger,^^ they would welcome such 
a dramatist as Shirley. For this reason, I believe, 
and not from indignation that the Queen's men had 
published his plays without his knowledge and con- 
sent, Shirley in 1640 began writing for his Majesty's 
Servants at Black Friars. 

What, then, are our conclusions concerning the 
chronology of Shirley's last dramatic period? In the 
first place, we have noted Shirley's removal to Dublin 
in the year 1636, the probable motive for his removal 
(the plague in London), and his establishment in 
Dublin as dramatist to John Ogilby's new theater in 
Werburgh Street. Secondly, we have verified from 
Malone's transcript of the office-book of Sir Henry 
Herbert, Master of the Revels, from the Stationers' 
Register, and from the title-pages of the published 

99 Died March, 1639/40. 

pail 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

plays, the available facts concerning the presentation 
of The Royal Master, The Gentleman of Venice, The 
Politician, St. Patrick for Ireland, The Constant 
Maid, Rosania {The Doubtful Heir)^ The Impos- 
ture, The Politique Father {The Brothers of 1652), 
The Cardinal, The Sisters, and The Court Secret; 
and concerning the publication of The Lady of Plea- 
sure, Hyde Park, The Young Admiral, The Exam- 
ple, The Gamester, The Royal Master, The Duke's 
Mistress, The Ball, Chabot, The Maid's Revenge, 
The Coronation, The Opportunity, Love's Cruelty, 
The Night Walker, The Humorous Courtier {The 
Duke), The Arcadia, St. Patrick for Ireland, and 
The Constant Maid. And finally, with respect to 
questions in dispute, we have concluded : ( i ) that the 
date of the presentation of The Royal Master before 
the Lord Deputy in Dublin Castle, may have been the 
evening of January i, ibi,6/j, rather than January i, 
1637/8, as has been usually assumed; (2) that Shir- 
ley's alleged visit to London in the spring of 1637 
may have taken place but, on the basis of extant evi- 
dence, is incapable of proof; (3) that the same is true 
of Shirley's alleged visit in the spring of 1639; (4) 
that the date of Shirley's ultimate return to London 
is 1640, probably in the spring, and perhaps even be- 
fore March 25, the date when the new year (Old 
Style) legally began ; (5) that Shirley's references to 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

his having lost his preferment must refer to a mis- 
fortune subsequent to 1633 and 1634, and may refer 
either to loss of preferment at court— possibly as a 
result of his personal satire in The Ball and in The 
Lady of Pleasure— in 1635, ^^ ^^ ^^^s of preferment 
in Ireland in 1639, or to neither; and (6) that Shir- 
ley's reason for ceasing to write for the Queen's men 
on his return from Ireland, was probably not his in- 
dignation over the publication of certain plays, but 
merely the fact that the original company of her Maj- 
esty's Servants was no longer in existence, and that 
the King's men offered him a more promising posi- 
tion than could the new company of her Majesty's 
Servants at Salisbury Court. With these facts as 
a basis and a background, we shall endeavor in Chap- 
ters XIV to XVIII inclusive, to complete our study 
of Shirley's development as a dramatist. 

I cannot better conclude my record of Shirley's 
third and last dramatic period, than by quoting the 
prologue of his last acted comedy. The Sisters: 

Does this look like a Term ? I cannot tell ; 
Our Poet thinks the whole Town is not well, 
Has took some physic lately, and, for fear 
Of catching cold, dares not salute this air. 
But there's another reason. I hear say 
London Is gone to York ; 'tis a great way. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Pox o' the proverb, and of him, say I, 

That look'd o'er Lincoln ! 'cause that was, must we 

Be now translated north? I could rail, too. 

On Gammar Shipton's ghost ; but 'twill not do : 

The town will still be flecking; and a play, 

Though ne'er so new, will starve the second day. 

Upon these very hard conditions. 

Our Poet will not purchase many towns ; 

And if you leave us too, we cannot thrive : 

I'll promise neither Play nor Poet live 

Till ye come back. Think what you do. You see 

What audiences we have, what company 

To Shakspere comes, whose mirth did once beguile 

Dull hours, and, buskin' d, made even sorrow smile. 

So lovely were the wounds, that men would say 

They could endure the bleeding a whole day. 

He has but few friends lately: think of that ! 

He'll come no more ; and others have his fate. 

Fletcher, the Muses' darling, and choice love 

Of Phcebus, the delight of every grove; 

Upon whose head the laurel grew: whose wit 

Was the time's wonder, and example yet: 

'Tis within memory, trees did not throng. 

As once the story said, to Orpheus' song. 

Jonson, f whose name wise art did bow, and wit 

Is only justified by honouring it; 

To hear whose touch, how would the learned quire 

With silence stoop! and when he took his lyre, 

Apollo dropp'd his lute, asham'd to see 

A rival to the god of harmony: 

[:i343 



THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

You do forsake him too. We must deplore 
This fate ; for we do know It by our door. 
How must this Author fear then, with his guilt 
Of weakness, to thrive here, where late was spilt 
The Muses' own blood ; if, being but a few, 
You not conspire, and meet more frequent too? 
There are not now nine Muses, and you may 
Be kind to ours. If not, he bad me say. 

Though while you careless kill the rest, and laugh, 
Yet he may live to write your epltaph.^^^ 

Thus runs the prologue of the last play of Shirley 
acted before the Civil War: "London is gone to 
York"; but the poet hopes that "yet he may live to 
write your epitaph." Ten years later, in a dedication 
addressed to William Earl of Strafford, son of the 
greater Earl of Strafford— that unhappy minister of 
an unhappy king— Shirley described the catastrophe 
in four pregnant w^ords : for Shirley, for Shirley's pa- 
tron, and for that patron's patron, "the stage was 
interdicted." ^^^ 

100 Works, V, 356-357- 

101 Dedication of The Court Secret; Works, v, 428. 



ni353 



CHAPTER V 

SHIRLEY'S POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

I 642-1 666 

jA FTER eighteen brilliant years as dramatist to 
/ % court and public, Shirley, at the age of 
Jl ^ forty-six, entered upon the closing period 
of his career— a quarter century of anticlimax: cava- 
lier, schoolmaster, literary drudge. For his life as 
soldier, our sole authority is Wood's AthencB Oxoni- 
enses. This account may well be as inaccurate as it 
is inadequate ; but it is all we have : 

When the rebellion broke out, and he [was] there- 
upon forced to leave London, and so consequently his 
Wife and Children (who afterwards were put to their 
shifts) , he was invited by his most noble Patron, William, 
Earl (afterwards Marquess and Duke) of Newcastle, to 
take his fortune with him In the wars, for that Count had 
engaged him so much by his generous liberality toward 
him, that he thought he could not do a worthier act than 
to serve him, and so consequently his Prince.^ 

1 Wood, 1691-1692, II, 261 ; cf. 1817, III, 737. 

1:136:] 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

This, I repeat, is all that we know of Shirley's soldier- 
ing ; and even this may be as dubious as is the imagi- 
native account in Shiels's Cibbe/s Lives of the Poets 
or Gosse's assertion that Shirley accompanied his lord 
to France.^ Ward, to be sure, insists that "the lines 
To Odelia^ certainly imply that Shirley took per- 
sonal part in the 'war' in which Newcastle was con- 
cerned from November, 1642, till July, 1644, when 
(after Marston Moor) he quitted England."^ And 
Nissen, who, as we have seen before, believes in a 
most literal interpretation of lyric poetry, declares 
that, from this poem To Odelia, we learn that Shirley 
tarried many months far from her in the North ; and 
that he entreats her for speedy news, for " 'tis far, 
and many accidents do wait on war." ^ Perhaps— but 
are all the lyrics of the Cavaliers to be accounted 
autobiographic documents? If so, how did Shirley, 
in his Poems of 1646, venture to address by name so 
many mistresses? What did Odelia think? What 
said his good wife Frances? By all means, let us re- 
turn to our Wood! 

After the Kings cause declined, he [Shirley] retired 
obscurely to London, where among other of his noted 
friends, he found Tho. Stanley, Esq., who exhibited to 

2 Introduction to the Mermaid Shirley, xxvl. 

* Works, VI, 408. 

4 Ward, inDAT^., Lii, 128. 

° Nissen, p. 22. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

him for the present. Afterwards, following his old trade 
of teaching School, which was mostly in the White Fryers, 
he not only gained a comfortable subsistence (for the 
acting of plays was then silenced) but educated many 
ingenious youths, who afterwards proved most eminent in 
divers faculties.^ 

The substantial accuracy of these assertions, v^e 
need not question. Shirley's publications for the 
years 1646 and 1647 ^^^ such as would be appropriate 
to the pensioner of Thomas Stanley, Esq.; his pub- 
lications from the year 1649 onw^ard, include several 
that are appropriate to a schoolmaster; and in Shir- 
ley's w^ill of July, 1666, w^hich I shall quote later in 
this chapter, he describes himself as ''of Whitefriars, 
London, gentleman." 

Shirley's Poems of 1646 is a small octavo volume in 
three parts, paged as if each part were to be issued 
separately. The several title-pages read: 

Poems &c. By James Shirley. Sine aliqua dementia 
nullus Phoebus. London, Printed for Humphrey Mose- 
ley, and are to be sold at his shop at the signe of the 
Princes Armes in St. Pauls Church-yard. 1646. 

Narcissus, or. The Self-Lover. By James Shirley. 
Haec olim — London, Printed for Humphrey Moseley, 
and are to be sold at his shop at the signe of the Princes 
Armes in St. Pauls Church-yard. MDCXLVL 

6 Wood, 1691-1692, II, 261; cf. 1817, III, 737-738. 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

The Trivmph of Beavtie. As It was personated by 
some young Gentlemen, for whom It was Intended, at a 
private Recreation. By James Shirley. London, Printed 
for Humphrey Mosely, and are to be sold at his shop, 
at the SIgne of the Princes Armes In St. Pauls Church- 
yard. MDCXLVI.^ 

Prefixed to the first of these divisions is a portrait 
of Shirley framed in a wreath of bay, supported by 
Tragedy and Comedy. Beneath it are engraved the 
lines : 

Haec summum vatem Shirlelum pingit Imago; 

Solem sic reddit debllls umbra suum: 
At si natlva fulgentem luce videbis, 

Exhibet en propria picta Tabella manu. 

The engraving is signed ^W. Marshall sculpsit, 
1646." Appended to this division of the volume is 
the following "Postscript to the Reader" : 

I had no Intention upon the birth of these poems, to 
let them proceed to the public view, forbearing In my 
own modesty to Interpose my fancies, when I see the 
world so plentifully furnished. But when I observed 
most of these copies corrupted In their transcripts, and 
the rest fleeting from me, which were by some Indiscreet 
collector, not acquainted with distributive justice, min- 
gled with other men's (some eminent) conceptions In 

^ From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

1:1393 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

print, I thought myself concerned to use some vindication, 
and reduce them to my own, without any pride or design 
of deriving opinion from their worth, but to shew my 
charity, that other Innocent men should not answer for my 
vanities. 

If thou beest courteous, reader, there are some errors 
of the press scattered, which thy clemency will not lay to 
my charge; other things I remit to thy judgment: if thou 
beest modest, I repent not to have exposed them and 
myself to thy censure. J. S.^ 

The second portion of the volume— Narcissus, or 
The Self-Lover — is supposed to be identical with the 
poem that was entered in the Stationers' Register on 
January 4, 1617/18, under the title: Ecc[h^o and 
Narcissus the 2 unfortunate lovers written by Jeames 
Sherley? Paged with Narcissus are 'Prologues and 
Epilogues, written to several Plays presented in this 
Kingdom and elsewhere." 

In 1647, the year following the publication of his 
Poems, we have a further glimpse of Shirley. This 
time the retired dramatist appears as dramatic critic 
—the author of an address "To the Reader" prefixed 
to the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher: 

Comedies and Tragedies Written by Francis Beav- 
mont And lohn Fletcher Gentlemen. Never printed be- 



® Works, VI, 461-462. 

9 5. R., Ill, 286. 



1:1403 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

fore, And now published by the Authours Orlglnall 
Copies. Si quid habent veri Vatum praesagia, vivam. 
London, Printed for Humphrey Robinson, at the three 
Pidgeons, and for Humphrey Moseley at the Princes 
Armes in St Pauls Church-yard. 1647.^^ 

This was a volume of no small importance. For 
plays, a folio was still a rarity; and the number of 
commendatory verses goes to show that, as a literary 
undertaking, it was accounted notable. That the tone 
of Shirley's introduction should be cordial was inevi- 
table; but that it was sincere as well we need not 
doubt: from Rare Ben Jonson, the "acknowledged 
master" of Shirley's early years, he had long since 
transferred his allegiance to these romantic drama- 
tists "whom but to mention is to throw a cloud upon 
all former names and to benight posterity." ^^ 

And now, reader [says Shirley], in this tragical age, 
where the theatre has been so much out-acted, congratu- 
late thy own happiness that, in this silence of the stage, 
thou hast liberty to read these inimitable plays, to dwell 
and converse in these immortal groves.^^ 

Alas, that one who could write thus of his predeces- 
sors in romantic drama must next produce a Via ad 
Lattnam Linguam Complanata! 

^^ From the copy in the possession of Ernest Dressel North, Esq. 

12 Ibid. 

13 Ibid. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

This text-book has a most marvelous frontispiece- 
title, engraved by T. Cross: Grammatica enthroned, 
and, below on either side, Etymologia and Syntaxis. 
The printed title reads : 

Via ad Latinam Linguam Complanata. The Way 
made plain to the Latine Tongue. The Rules composed in 
English and Latine Verse : For the greater Delight and 
Benefit of Learners. By James Shirley. Avia Pieridum 
peragro loca. Lucret. London, Printed by R. W. for 
John Stephenson, at the signe of the Sun on Ludgate- 
Hill. 1649.1^ 

Four years later, in 1653, Shirley again appears. 
In this year he published Six New Playes, a volume 
which included: The Doubtful Heir, licensed, as 
Rosanidj June i, 1640; The Imposture, licensed No- 
vember 10, 1640; The Brothers, which we believe to 
be identical with The Politique Father, licensed May 
26, 1641 ; The Cardinal, licensed November 25, 1641 ; 
The Sisters, licensed April 26, 1642; and The Court 
Secret, "never acted, but prepared for the scene at the 
Black-Friers," 1642. The title-page of this volume 
bears, as the date of publication, the year 1653. The 
title-pages of the individual plays, however, with the 
exception of The Court Secret, are dated not 1653 
but 1652. They are as follows : 

^* From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

U . 

Six New Playes, Viz. The Brothers. Sisters. Doubt- 
full Heir. Imposture. Cardlnall. Court Secret. The 
Five first were acted at the Private House in Black Fryers 
with great Applause. The last was never Acted. All 
Written by James Shirley. Never printed before. Lon- 
don, Printed for Humphrey Robinson at the Three Pig- 
eons, and Humphrey Moseley at the Prince's Armes in 
St. Paul's Curch-yard. 1653.^^ 

The Brothers, A Comedie, As It was Acted at the 
private House in Black Fryers. Written By James Shir- 
ley. Never Printed before. London, Printed for Hum- 
phrey Robinson at the Three Pigeons, and Humphrey 
Moseley at the Prince Armes in St. Paul's Church-yard. 
1652.^^ 

^ The Sisters, A Comedie, As It was acted at the private 
House in Black Fryers, Written By James Shirley. Never 
Printed before. London, Printed for Humphrey Robin- 
son at the Three Pigeons, and Humphrey Moseley at the 
Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-yard. 1652.^^ 

-' The Doubtful Heir. A Tragi-comedie, As It was 
Acted at the private House in Black Friers, Written By 
James Shirley. Never Printed before. London, Printed 
for Humphrey Robinson at the three Pigeons, and Hum- 
phrey Moseley at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church- 
yard. 1652.^^ 

^^ From the copy belonging to the present writer. 
i« Ibid. 
1^ Ibid. 
i« Ibid. 

[:h3 3 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The Impostvre A Tragi-Comedie, As It was Acted at 
the private House in Black Fryers. Written By James 
Shirley. Never Printed before. London, Printed for 
Humphrey Robinson at the Three Pigeons, and Hum- 
phrey Moseley at the Prince's Armes In St. Paul's Curch- 
yard. 1652.^^ 

The Cardinal, A Tragedie, As It was acted at the 
private House in Black Fryers, Written By James Shirley. 
Not Printed before. London, Printed for Humphrey Rob- 
inson at the Three Pigeons, and Humphrey Moseley at 
the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-yard. 1652.^'^ 

The Court Secret, A Tragl-comedy : Never Acted, But 
prepared for the Scene at Black-Friers. Written By 
James Shirley. Never printed before. London, Printed 
for Humphrey Robinson at the three Pigeons, and for 
Humphrey Moseley at the Prince's Armes In Saint Paul's 
Church-yard, 1653.^^ 

Appended to The Cardinal in this volume of Six 
New Playes, is "A Catalogue of the Authors Poems 
Already Printed." It includes all of his published 
w^orks up to that time except, strangely. The Young 
Admiral and The Arcadia. Also unmentioned are 
three of the Six New Playes— The Doubtful Heir, 
The Cardinal, and The Court Secret; two plays sub- 
sequently published — The Politician, and The Gen- 

1® From the copy belonging to the present writer. 

20 Ibid. 

21 Ibid. 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

tleman of Venice; and certain minor pieces. ^^ A simi- 
lar list of publications was appended, as the reader 
may recall, to The Maid^s Revenge, 1639. 

To this same year, 1653, belong also both the act- 

^^ This list of publications appended to The Cardinal reads as 
follows : 

"A CATALOGUE OF THE AUTHORS POEMS ALREADY 

PRINTED 

Tragedies 
The Tray tour 

Philip Chabot Admirall of France 
Loves Cruelty 
The Maids Revenge 
Dukes Mistris 
The Cardinal 

Comedies and Tragi-comedies 
The School of Complement 
The Lady of Pleasure 
Hide-parke 
The Constant Maid 

*The Coronation * Falsely as- 

The Changes, or Love in a Maze cribed to 

The Gratefull Servant •^°- Fletcher. 

The Patron of Ireland 
The Humorous Court [ier] 
The Wedding 

The Ball, or French Dancing Master 
The Gamester 
The Example 
The Bird in a cage 
The Royall Master 
The Opportunity 
The Witty Fair one 
The Imposture 
The Brothers 
The Sisters 

A Masque of the four Honorable Innes of Court, presented before 
the King and Queens Majesty at Whitehall in the Banqueting house. 
Poems." 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ing and the publication of Shirley's Cupid and Death. 
Its title reads : 

Cvpid and Death. A Masque. Ks it was Presented 
before his Excellencie, The Embassadour of Portugal, 
Upon the 26. of March, 1653. Written by J. S. Lon- 
don: Printed according to the Authors own Copy, by 
T. W. for J. Crook, & J. Baker, at the Sign of the Ship in 
St. Pauls Church-Yard, 1653.^^ 

The last plays that Shirley printed appeared tv^^'o 
years later, in 1655. These were The Politician and 
The Gentleman of Venice, both of which, according 
to their title-pages, had been presented at Salisbury 
Court by her Majesty's Servants. The Gentleman of 
Venice, as we noticed above, had been licensed for 
presentation on October 30, 1639. Later, according 
to Shirley's dedication, "it lost itself, till it was re- 
covered after much inquisition."^^ This passage 
means, I take it, that either because Shirley had 
ceased to write for the players of Salisbury Court, or 
because of the closing of the theaters, or perhaps 
merely because the Queen's men insisted upon their 
rights of ownership, Shirley was long unable to re- 
gain possession of the play. Such may have been the 
history also of The Politician, published, like The 

23 From the copy in the British Museum. 
2^ Works, V, 3. 

C146:] 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Gentleman of Venice, by Humphrey Moseley, in 
1655, and, like that play, ascribed on its title-page to 
her Majesty's Servants of Salisbury Court. Of the 
licensing of The Politician, we have no record ; but 
this may be the fault of Malone's transcript rather 
than the laxity of Manager Turner or of Sir Henry 
Herbert. The ill-advised attempt to identify this 
play with The Politique Father, I have sufficiently 
discussed in connection with The Brothers of 1626. 
In respect to its publication, it was, as Shirley prophe- 
sied in his dedication, "the last" of his plays "to salute 
the public view."^^ The title-pages of these two 
plays read thus : 

The Gentleman of Venice A Tragi-Comedie Pre- 
sented at the Private house In Salisbury Court by her 
Majesties Servants. Written by James Shirley. London, 
Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his 
Shop at the Princes Armes In St. Pauls Church-yard. 
i655.2« 

The Polltltlan, A Tragedy, Presented at Salisbury 
Court By Her Majesties Servants; Written By James 
Shirley. London, Printed for Humphrey Moseley and 
are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes In St. 
Pauls Church-yard. 1655.^^ 

25 Works, V, 91. 

2^ From the copy belonging to the present writer. 

27 Ibid, 

1:147] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley's second Latin text-book appeared in 1656, 
and was reissued under a new title in 1660. The two 
title-pages read : 

The Rudiments of Grammar. The Rules Composed 
in English Verse, For The greater Benefit and delight of 
young Beginners. By James Shirley. Vtile dulcl. Lon- 
don, Printed by J. Macock for R. Lownds, and are to be 
sold at his shop at the white Lyon In Paul's Church-Yard, 
1656.28 

ManductIo: or, A leading of Children by the Hand 
Through the Principles of Grammar. The second Edi- 
tion, Enlarged. By Ja : Shirley. Pervenlrl ad summum 
nisi ex prlnclplls non potest. London, Printed for Richard 
Lowndes, at the WhIte-LIon In S. Pauls Church-Yard. 
1660.29 

Of greater interest is the little volume of 1659 con- 
taining Honoria and Mammon and The Contention 
of Ajax and Ulysses for the Armor of Achilles. The 
title-pages of the volume and of the parts read thus : 

Honoria and Mammon. Written by James Shirly 
Gent. Scene Metropolis, or New-Troy. Whereunto is 
added the Contention of Ajax and Ullsses, for the Ar- 
mour of Achilles. As It was represented by young Gen- 
tlemen of quality at a private entertainment of some Per- 

2® From the copy in the British Museum. 

1:148:1 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

sons of Honour. London, Printed for John Crook, and 
are to be sold at his shop at the signe of the Ship in S. 
Pauls Church-yard, 1659.-^^ 

Honoria and Mammon. Written by James Shirley 
[Three lines in Latin.] London, Printed by T. W. for 
John Crook, at the sign of the ship in S. Pauls Church- 
yard, [n.d.]^^ 

The Contention of Ajax and Ulysses, for the Armor 
of Achilles. As It was nobly represented by young Gen- 
tlemen of quality, at a private Entertainment of some per- 
sons of Honour. Written By James Shirley. London, 
Printed for John Crook, at the sign of the ship in S. Pauls 
Church-yard. [n. d.]^^ 

The Contention of Ajax and Ulysses is especially 
to be remembered for containing that noble dirge 
that seems destined for all time to represent the work 
of Shirley in our anthologies : the poem beginning, 

The glories of our blood and state 
Are shadows, not substantial things. 

Spoken as it is by Calchas to the six princes, Aga- 
memnon, Diomedes, Menelaus, Thersander, Nestor, 
and Ulysses, as they bear the body of Ajax to the tem- 
ple, the poem is especially affecting: 

^^ From the copies belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

31 Ibid, 32 11,1^^ 

1:149] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The glories of our blood and state 

Are shadows, not substantial things ; 
There Is no armour against fate; 
Death lays his Icy hand on kings : 
Scepter and crown 
Must tumble down, 
And In the dust be equal made 
With the poor crooked scythe and spade. 

Some men with swords may reap the field 
And plant fresh laurels where they kill ; 
But their strong nerves at last must yield; 
They tame but one another still : 
Early or late 
They stoop to fate. 
And must give up their murmuring breath, 
When they, pale captives, creep to death. 

The garlands wither on your brow. 

Then boast no more your mighty deeds ; 
Upon Death's purple altar now. 

See, where the victor-victim bleeds : 
Your heads must come 
To the cold tomb ; 
Only the actions of the just 
Smell sweet, and blossom In their dust. 

In the library of the late Robert Hoe, Esq., were 
three copies of this volume, in one of vv^hich occurred 
the rare engraving of Shirley dated 1658. It show^s 
head and shoulders mounted upon a pedestal: dark 




IacoBu5 Shirlaeu5: 



G rhcmk. ^mx •■ 



^ u-.a.-uwJ Ircil I i 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

skull-cap, wavy black hair falling upon a soft white 
collar, round face, scant light mustache, conspicuous 
eyes. Clearly emblazoned in the upper left-hand cor- 
ner, a shield displays the arms of the Warwick Shir- 
leys, but differenced with a crescent: paly of six, pre- 
sumably or and azure, a quarter ermine.^^ Beneath 
the bust appear the words: "Jacobus Shirlaeus: G. 
Phenik pinx: R. Gaywood fecit 1658." 

The similarity of this engraving to the oil portrait 
of Shirley in the Bodleian, was noted by Dyce in 
1833. This painting, which has been but inaccurately 
copied by Lupton in the engraving prefixed to the 
first volume of Shirley's Dramatic Works, shows 
Shirley seated in a massive chair, leaning slightly 
upon his right elbow with his right hand at his cheek. 
It shows the same black skull-cap, the same flowing 
hair — or wig— the same soft white collar, the same 
scant light mustache (not black, as Lupton makes it) , 
and the same fine eyes, as in the Phenik-Gaywood 
portrait. Clearly the two pictures belong to the same 
period of Shirley's life, even if they be not more 
vitally related.^^ 

^3 A student familiar only with the modern method of engraving 
arms, might read this shield "paly of six azure and argent" ; for the 
odd pales are shaded horizontally and the even pales are without line 
or dot. That such is the significance of the lines, however, is most 
unlikely. The modern method of indicating tinctures in black and 
white, was very new in England in 1658. 

^* Cf. Dyce's note in Works, i, Iviii. 

ni50 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley's few remaining publications may be 
chronicled in a paragraph. In 1657, the unsold 
sheets of The Constant Maid and St. Patrick for Ire- 
land, of 1640, were reissued with new title-pages. In 
1659, was reprinted Shirley's Cupid and Death of 
1653. The Wedding and, according to Ward, The 
Grateful Servant ^^ were reprinted in 1660; The 
Night Walker, in 166 1. In the latter year, The Con- 
stant Maid appeared for a third time, but with the 
unexpected title-page : 

Love will finde out the Way. An Excellent Comedy. 
By T. B. As it was Acted with great Applause, by Her 
Majesties Servants, at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. Lon- 
don : Printed by Ja : Cottrel, for Samuel Speed, at the 
Signe of the Printing-Press in St. Paul's Church-yard. 
1 66 1. 36 

The play appeared a fourth time in 1667, but under 
a combination title: ^^The Constant Maid: or, Love 
will finde out the Way. . . . By J. S.''^'^ Thus ends 
the list. 

We have, however, from the pen of Wood, one 
further note upon the work of Shirley: 

^^ Ward, in DNB., lii, 130, gives this date, but with a question- 
mark, borrowed, perhaps, from the catalogue of the British Museum. 

^^ From the title-page of the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, 
Esq. 

^^ From the copy in the British Museum. 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

Our author Shirley did also much assist his generous 
Patrone William, Duke of Newcastle, in the composure of 
certain Plays which the Duke afterwards published; and 
was a Drudge for John Ogilby in his translation of 
Homers Iliads and Odysses, and some of Virgils works, 
into English verse, with the writing of annotations on 
them.^^ 

Of the accuracy of these statements we have no 
proof; but v^e know that the year 1649— in which 
Ogilby published the first edition of his Virgil— was 
the year in which Ogilby contributed complimentary 
verses to Shirley's Via ad Latinam Linguam Com- 
planata. We remember also the statement made by 
Wood that, in preparation for his translation of the 
Iliad, 1660, and of the Odyssey, 1665, Ogilby studied 
Greek under Shirley's usher, David Whitford. Con- 
cerning Shirley's relation to the plays of William, 
Duke of Newcastle, the only evidence is the presence 
of a catch, "Come, let us throw the dice,"^^ both in 
Shirley's Poems, 1646, and in Newcastle's comedy. 
The Country Captain, 

In the years immediately following the Restora- 
tion, the work of Shirley was again upon the stage. 
As Wood expresses it, 

After his Majesties return to his Kingdoms, several of 

^® Wood, 1691-1692, II, 262; cf. 1817, III, 739-740. 
2^ Worksj VI, 439. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

his [Shirley's] plays which he before had made, were 
acted with good applause, but what office or employ he 
had confer'd upon him after all his sufferings, I cannot 
now justly tell.^^ 

In both of these assertions, the modern biographer 
has only to concur with Wood. Of office or employ- 
ment conferred on Shirley "after all his sufferings," 
we have no evidence. Possibly the aged dramatist 
was still, as in 1639, unable to affect "the ways of flat- 
tery." ^^ Possibly, at the age of sixty-four, he was in- 
different. We have, however, ample evidence of the 
revival of the plays of Shirley on the London stage. 
In a list of the plays presented by the Red Bull actors, 
1 660-1 663, quoted by Malone,^^ appear The Traitor 
and Lovers Cruelty; and in a list which, according to 
Malone, "appears to have been made by Sir Henry 
Herbert in order to enable him to ascertain the fees 
due to him, whenever he should establish his 
claims," ^^ we find: "1660. . . . Tuesday the 6 Nov. 
The Tray tor . . . Thursday the 15 Nov. Loves 
Cruelty . . . Thursday the 22 Nov. The Traytor 
. . . Monday the 26 Nov. The Opportunity. . . . 
1662. . . . May 17, Love in a Maze. . . . July 6. 

*^ Wood, 1691-1692, II, 261; cf. 1817, III, 739. 

*^ Dedication to The Maid's Revenge; Works, I, lOl. 

*2 Malone's Shakspere, 1821, Iii, 272-273. 

*^ Ibid., 273. 

[1543 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

The Brothers. . . . July 23. The Cardinall/'^^ 
Pepys, in his diary for October 10, 1661, records: 

Sir W. Pen, and my wife and I, to the Theatre, . . . 
where the King came to-day, and there was The Traytor, 
most admirably acted; and a most excellent play it is. 

And again, October 2, 1662, he writes: 

At night, . . . hearing that there was a play at the 
Cockpit, (and my Lord Sandwich, who came to town last 
night, at it), I do go thither, and by very great fortune 
did follow four or five gentlemen who were carried to a 
little private door in the wall, and so crept through a 
narrow place, and come into one of the boxes next the 
King's, but so as I could not see the King or Queen, but 
many of the fine ladies, who yet are not really so hand- 
some generally as I used to take them to be, but that they 
are finely dressed. Here we saw The Cardinally a trag- 
edy I had never seen before, nor is there any great matter 
in it. The company that came in with me into the box 
were all Frenchmen that could speak no English: but. 
Lord ! what sport they made to ask a pretty lady that they 
got among them, that understood both French and Eng- 
lish, to make her tell them what the actors said. 

These two plays, The Traitor and The Cardinal, to- 
gether with The Opportunity, The Example, and 

** Malone's Shakspere, 1821, in, 273-276. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Love in a Maze, are mentioned by John Downes, in 
his Roscius Anglicanus, as among the plays acted at 
the New Theater in Drury-Lane in 1663 : 

These being Old Plays [he writes], were Acted but 
now and then; yet, being well Perform'd, were very Satis- 
factory to the Town.^^ 

The next mention of a play by Shirley occurs in 
Pepys's diary for August 18, 1664: 

Dined alone at home, my wife going to-day to dine 
with Mrs. Pierce, and thence with her and Mrs. Gierke 
to see a new play. The Court Secret. . . . My wife says, 
the play she saw is the worst that ever she saw in her life. 

In 1666, Dow^nes thus resumes the record: 

After this the Company [of Sir William Davenant, in 
Lincoln's Inn Fields] Reviv'd Three Comedies of Mr. 
Sherly's viz. The Grateful Servant, The Witty Fair One, 
The School of Complements. . . . These Plays being 
perfectly well Perform'd; especially Dulcino the Grateful 
Servant, being Acted by Mrs. Long; and the first time she 
appear'd in Man's Habit, prov'd as Beneficial to the Com- 
pany, as several new Plays.^^ 

Upon one of these plays, the comment of Pepys, 
August 5, 1667, is not quite so favorable: 

*^ Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, 1708; reprint of 1886, p. 9. 
*^ Ibid., p. 27. 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

To the Duke of York's house, and there saw Lovers 
Trickes, or the School of Compliments; a silly play, only 
MIs's [Davis's] dancing in a shepherd's clothes did please 
us mightily. 

The lines just quoted have taken us a year beyond 
the death of Shirley; but I insert here two more pas- 
sages from Pepys, the first from his diary for Decem- 
ber 30, 1667, the second, an entry for July 11, 1668: 

Thence with Sir Philip Carteret to the King's play 
house, there to see Lovers Cruelty, an old play, but which 
I have not seen before; and in the first act Orange Moll 
came to me ... to tell me that ... I was desired to 
come home. So I went out presently, and by coach home, 
and . . . after a very little stay with my wife, I took 
coach again, and to the King's playhouse again, and come 
in the fourth act : and it proves to me a very silly play, and 
to everybody else, as far as I could judge. 

To the King's playhouse, to see an old play of Shirly's, 
called Hide Parke; the first day acted; where horses are 
brought upon the stage : but it is but a very moderate play, 
only an excellent epilogue spoke by Beck Marshall. 

The foregoing list of Shirleian revivals recorded by 
Pepys and by Downes, we may supplement from two 
title-pages of the year 1667: The Constant Maid: or, 
Love will finde out the Way . . . As it is now Acted 
at the new Play-house called the Nursery, in Hatton- 

[1573 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Garden ... ;^^ and Love Tricks, or, the School of 
Complements; As it is now acted by his Royal High- 
nesse The Duke of York's Servants At the Theatre in 
Little Lincolns-Inne Fields.^^ Evidently Wood's 
assertion that "several of Shirley's plays . . . were 
acted with good applause/' has some foundation. 

Concerning the family of Shirley and his worldly 
estate in his declining years, his will of July, 1666, 
preserved at Somerset House, bears interesting wit- 
ness. As this document has not heretofore appeared 
in print, I quote it here entire. The blank spaces 
were left unfilled in the original : 

I, James Shirley of White Fryers, London, gentleman, 
being of perfect mind and memory. Doe make and declare 
this my last Will and Testament in the manner and forme 
following. 

First, I resigne my Soule into the hands of Almighty 
God, my Creator, with full beliefe to have remission of all 
my Sinnes by the Meritts, death, and Passion of my Re- 
deemer Jesus Christ. 

My body I remitt to the earth to be decently buried 
according to the Discretion of my Executor hereafter 
named. 

As to the Disposition of my worldly estate, I give and 
bequeath the same (my Debts, if any shall appeare, and 
funerall Charges first defraid) as followeth: 

^"^ From the copy in the British Museum. See Bibliography. 
*8 Ibid. 

[1583 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

I give and bequeath to my eldest Son, Mathlas Shir- 
ley, 20o£ Sterl. to bee paid him within six moneths after 
my Decease. I likewise give him my Cornelian seald 
ring, my silver watch, and my best wearing clothes. 

I give and bequeath to my son Christopher Shirley 
ioo£ to be paid him likewise within 6 monthes after my 
decease. 

I give and bequeath to my son James Shirley the some 
of i5o£ Sterl. to bee paid him within 6 monthes as afore- 
said. 

I give and bequeath to my Daughter Mary, now wife 
of Standerdine Shirley, als. Sachell, the some of 20o£ 
Sterl. to bee paid as aforesaid. I alsoe give her a Silver 
Tanckard marked. 

I give unto Standerdine above named One gold ring 
with fine Turkey stones, and I doe release and forgive 
to him a Debt of Fifty pounds which I lent him upon his 
Bond dated [ ]. 

I give and bequeath to my Daughter Lawrinda, the 
Relict of Howard Fountaine, the some of Two Hundred 
pounds. Item. I give to her my little Diamond. 

I give and bequeath to George Shirley, als. Sachell, son 
of the said Standerdine and Mary, the sume of Thirty 
pounds to bee paid as above said. 

I give and Bequeath to my worthy friend Mr. John 
Warter of the Inner Temple, the sume of [ ]. 

I give to Mistris Warter, wife of the said Mr. John 
Warter, to buy her a Ring [ ]. 

I give to Mr. George Warter, sonne of the said Mr. 
John [ ] the sume of [ ]. 

ni593 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

I give to Mr. Vincent Cane, my loveing friend, the 
silme of Twenty pounds to be Disposed by him according 
to a former agreement betwixt Us. 

And I doe by this my will, give and bequeath unto my 
loveing wife, Frances Shirley, all the Remainder of my 
Estate, Specialtyes, plate, moneys, Jewells, Linnen, Wool- 
len Bedding, brass. Pewter, or goods of any Kind what- 
soever, my debts and Legacyes being first paid, in con- 
fidence that shee wilbe kind to my Children, and at her 
Death, if it shall please God that any of them Survive 
her, I doubt not but that shee will leave upon them some 
Testimony of her love for my sake. 

And I doe hereby nominate. Constitute, and appoint 
my said loveing wife, Frances Shirley, Executrix of this 
my last Will and Testament. 

In Witness whereof I have subscribed my name and 
affixed my Seale, the [ ] Day of July Anno Dm 1666, 

And in the Eighteenth yeare of the Raigne of our Sover- 
aigne Lord, King Charles the Second. 

James Shirley. 

Signed, Sealed, and published in the presence of 

[ y 

The will of Shirley, July, 1666, brings us to the 

*^ Prerogative Court of Canterbury [Somerset House], Mico, folio 
170. The will bears the following endorsement: 

"3 November 1666 commission issued to Mary Poulton, wife of 
Richard Poulton, daughter of the sister of Frances Sherley deceased, 
while she lived relict and executrix named in the will of the testator 
James Shirley, late of White Fryers, London, but deceased in the 
parish of St. Giles in the Fields, co. Middlesex, to administer the 
goods, etc., of the said James Shirley, the said Frances having died 
before taking upon her the execution of the above will." 

[1603 



THE POST-DRAMATIC PERIOD 

record of his death in October of the same year; but 
before we make this final entry, it is fitting that we 
summarize our chapter on Shirley's Post-dramatic 
Period. 

Although this chapter covers a period of twenty- 
four years, from 1642 to 1666, its content may be 
briefly stated. We have noted the probability that 
Shirley served with Newcastle in the Civil War, and 
that he was pensioner to Thomas Stanley, Esq., and 
literary collaborator with Newcastle and with 
Ogilby. We have noted that he was a successful 
schoolmaster in Whitefriars. We have chronicled 
the publication of his Poems, his Via ad Latinam 
Linguam Complanata, his Six New Piayes, his 
Cupid and Death, The Politician, The Gentleman of 
Venice, and his Honoria and Mammon and The 
Contention of Ajax and Ulysses. We have noted and 
described the engraving of Shirley by W. Marshall, 
1646; the oil portrait in the Bodleian; and the 
Phenik-Gaywood engraving, 1658. We have quoted 
from Herbert, from Pepys, and from Downes, the 
record of Shirleian revivals after 1660. Finally, from 
the records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 
we have reproduced in full the will of Shirley, a 
document not previously in print. 

In September, 1666, some two months after Shirley 
made his will, occurred the Great Fire of London. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Of the misfortunes that it brought upon Shirley and 
his wife Frances, Wood shall speak: 

At length, after Mr. Shirley had lived to the age of 
72 years at least [Wood should have written "seventy"] 
in various conditions, and had seen much of the world, he 
with his second Wife, Frances, were driven by the dismal 
conflagration that hapned in London an. 1666, from 
their habitation near to Fleetstreet, into the Parish of St. 
Giles in the Fields in Middlesex; where, being in a man- 
ner overcome with affrightments, disconsolations, and 
other miseries occasion'd by that fire and their losses, they 
both died within the compass of a natural day : whereupon 
their bodies were buried in one grave in the yard belong- 
ing to the said Church of S. Giles's on the 29 of Octob. 
in sixteen hundred sixty and six.^^ 

In the register of burials of "St. Giles in ye Fields, 
1638-68," occurs the following entry: 

October 1666. 

( Mr. James Sherley. 

) Mris. Frances Sherley his wife. 

^**Wood, 1691-1692, n, 262; cf. 1817, III, 740. 



1:1623 



:a>3SXM 



^SHS^^^^^^^M^SSf?^ 



^Ikc 



/4 i Kf*^'!'*^"*^^* Y^eroiL/e- 






O/hc^ q/*^^ 9.^/.'" 



PART II 
THE PLAYS OF SHIRLEY 



THE FIRST 
DRAMATIC PERIOD 



CHRONOLOGY OF PLAYS 
FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD 

1625-1632 

1624/5, February 10. Love Tricks^ with Comple- 
ments licensed. Subsequently published as The 
School of Complement. 

1625/6, February 9. The Maid's Revenge licensed. 

1626, May 31. The Wedding (according to the hy- 
pothesis of Fleay) acted. 

1626, November 4. The Brothers licensed. A lost 
work, to be identified neither with The Brothers 
of 1652 nor with Dicke of Devonshire. 

1628, October 3. The Witty Fair One licensed. 

1629, November 3. The Faithful Servant licensed. 
Subsequently published as The Grateful Servant. 

163 1, May 4. The Traitor licensed. 
163 1, May 17. The Duke licensed. Subsequently 
published as The Humorous Courtier. 

163 1, November 14. Love's Cruelty licensed. 

163 1/2, January 10. The Changes licensed. Subse- 
quently published as Changes, or Love in a Maze. 

1632, April 20. Hyde Park licensed. 
1632, November 16. The Ball licensed. 



1:1663 



CHAPTER VI 

THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD-BEGUN 
FROM LOVE TRICKS TO THE WEDDING 

FROM our examination of the life of Shirley, 
we pass now to a consideration of his dra- 
matic works and of his development as a 
dramatist. Our endeavor, in the five chapters just 
concluded, has been to weigh anew the evidence con- 
cerning his career, and thereby to establish, with 
greater accuracy than has been hitherto attained, the 
chronology of Shirley's plays. This chronology being 
established, our endeavor now becomes twofold : first, 
to ascertain the character of his dramatic works, both 
individually and in their several kinds, realistic and 
romantic; and, second, to ascertain the direction of 
his growth from play to play, from period to period. 
With respect to their character, we shall find that 
Shirley was not without interest in the realistic 
comedy of manners and of humors ; but that he gave 
himself even more earnestly to dramatic romance, to 
romantic comedy, and to romantic tragedy. With 
respect to the direction of his growth, we shall find 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

that Shirley, although originally a follower of the 
realistic school, gradually shifted to the writing of 
romantic plays: that the career of James Shirley, 
dramatist, is itself a drama, in which the contending 
forces are realism and romanticism, and in which 
romanticism is ultimately triumphant. 

Of the realistic plays of Shirley, Hyde Park, The 
Ball, and The Gamester are typical examples. Their 
purpose was to satirize conditions and characters that 
actually existed, and, to this end, not only to depict 
with accuracy the manners and the men of court and 
town, but, on occasion, to magnify an actual charac- 
teristic into a humor. In their use of humors, in their 
realism, in their careful attention to technique, Shir- 
ley's comedies of manners show conspicuously the 
influence of the realistic comedy of his predecessors 
and contemporaries — the influence of such plays as 
Every Man in His Humor and The Wild Goose 
Chase. The Jonsonian influence Shirley himself cor- 
dially and reverently admitted when, in the dedica- 
tion of The Grateful Servant, he made reference to 
"our acknowledged master, learned Jonson." 

Of the romantic plays of Shirley, The Traitor, The 
Young Admiral, and The Royal Master are repre- 
sentative. Their purpose was to present, on the far 
coast of some Bohemia, intrigues of statecraft or of 
love ; scene after scene of amazement or poetic charm. 

1:168] 



THE PLAYS OF SHIRLEY 

Occasionally one of these romantic plays may intro- 
duce a character of humor, just as a realistic play may 
lay its scene in Mantua or Ferrara. But, despite such 
minor inconsistencies, the type is clear: a romantic 
type that reminds us now of the romantic comedy 
and the romantic tragedy of Shakspere, of a Much 
Ado or of a Romeo and Juliet; now of the dramatic 
romance of Fletcher and of Shakspere, of a Philaster 
or of a Cymbeline, 

In Shirley's first dramatic period— from the licens- 
ing of his first play. Love Tricks, February lo, 
1624/5, to the licensing of The Ball, November 16, 
1632— realism is increasingly triumphant. Indeed, 
out of the eleven surviving plays that belong surely 
to this period,^ only three — The Maid^s Revenge, 
The Grateful Servant, and The Traitor — are defi- 
nitely romantic. Love Tricks is a mixture of roman- 
ticism and realism ; and the remaining seven plays — 
The Wedding, The Witty Fair One, The Humorous 
Courtier, Love's Cruelty, Changes, Hyde Park, and 
The Ball— arc definitely realistic. Five of these seven 

^ From this estimate, I omit the play licensed as The Brothers, 
November 4, 1626. For reasons stated in my second chapter, I am 
convinced that it is not the play published as The Brothers in 1652. 
That The Brothers of 1626 may be identical with Dicke of Devonshire 
is possible, but has not been proved. That the play is no longer extant 
is quite as probable. As for the play published as The Brothers in 
1652, I shall consider it in this work as identical with the play licensed 
as The Politique Father, May 26, 1641. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

realistic plays, moreover, fall in the last two years of 
the period, in swift succession. 

Realism and romanticism, the two forces that in 
the drama of Shirley were to struggle for the mastery, 
make their appearance together in his first dramatic 
work. Of the three plays that form the subject of 
this chapter. The Maid^s Revenge is a romantic trag- 
edy; The Wedding is a realistic comedy of manners 
and of humors; and Love Tricks, or The School of 
Complement, which chronologically I should have 
mentioned first, is a glorious mixture of elements that 
range from the Fletcherian pastoral of the closing 
scenes to the Jonsonian humors of the compliment- 
school. 

For a career in which so many elements were suc- 
cessfully to mingle. Love Tricks, or The School of 
Complement, licensed February lo, 1624/5, affords 
an introduction thoroughly appropriate. It well- 
nigh exemplifies, indeed, the type of play once men- 
tioned by Polonius— the "tragical-comical-historical- 
pastoral." Like a modern musical comedy, the play 
consists of a multitude of episodes emotionally di- 
verse and intellectually incoherent, strung on a thread 
that only by courtesy can be called a plot. 

Such as it is, the story deals with the fortunes of 
two families. The first consists of an ancient gentle- 
man named Cornelio, his son Antonio, and his daugh- 



LOVE TRICKS 

ter Selina. Formerly he had had another daughter, 
Felice; but she, forbidden to marry Gasparo, had 
abandoned both her father and her lover, and had 
utterly disappeared. The second family consists of 
an old merchant named Rufaldo and his daughter 
Hilaria. Rufaldo desires to marry Cornelio's daugh- 
ter Selina; and he commands his own daughter, 
Hilaria, to give her love to Bubulcus, a wealthy 
country gull. She, however, prefers the suit of Cor- 
nelio's son Antonio. 

Into this situation there comes, as a complicating 
force, the servant, Gorgon. By him inspired, old 
Rufaldo imagines he is young again, and in this be- 
lief, presses his love upon Selina. Refusing a more 
desirable suitor, Infortunio, she consents, without ap- 
parent motive, to the marriage. Her father, Cornelio, 
does not like the match ; but, remembering the loss of 
Felice, he consents to let her have her will. On the 
wedding morn, however, Selina comes to her senses, 
disguises herself as a shepherd, and slips away. Her 
absence occasions alarm; but her brother, concluding 
that she has but played a joke upon them all, dis- 
guises himself in Selina's clothes and becomes Ru- 
f aldo's bride. This gives him access to his own love, 
Rufaldo's daughter. His first act, however, is to 
quarrel with Rufaldo and administer a beating. 

At this point, the play becomes a pastoral. Selina, 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

disguised as a shepherd, has met a shepherdess who 
is really her lost sister, Felice. To them comes Se- 
lina's lover, Infortunio, distracted because he thinks 
her married to Rufaldo. Presently Gasparo arrives, 
recognizes his lost love Felice, and reveals himself. 
Selina takes the same occasion to reveal herself to 
Infortunio; but Gasparo, insisting that Selina is mar- 
ried to Rufaldo, declares her statement false. Realiz- 
ing that her brother, Antonio, has assumed her part 
at home, Selina sends for him to join her in the forest. 
A general assembly of the characters, a mutual rec- 
ognition scene, and the union of the three pairs of 
lovers, end the play. 

Such is the plot— the very slender plot— of Love 
Tricks, Shirley's earliest play. The real interest, for- 
tunately, consists in episodes that present the comic 
characters. There is Rufaldo's self-deception and its 
cure at the hands of his supposed bride Antonio. 
There is the boasting of Bubulcus, the country gull, 
and his fear when Antonio, taking him at his word, 
causes his arrest for murder. There is the '^business" 
of Gorgon as a shepherdess and the betrayal of his 
would-be lovers. There is the masque in the pastoral 
scene, as a device effecting the final recognitions. 
And lastly, most notable of all, there is the scene in 
which Gasparo and Gorgon conduct the School of 
Complement. This is a satire upon the contemporary 

[1723 



LOVE TRICKS 

books of polite instruction. The master and his usher 
teach their pupils elaborate speeches for various oc- 
casions. Presently they require all their pupils to 
rehearse at once. At that moment enters Infortunio, 
temporarily insane, and assumes the pupils to be lost 
souls in hell. They, by Gasparo's direction, explain 
to him in turn why each was damned. Excellent in 
itself, this scene conspicuously exemplifies the weak- 
ness of the play: the fact, namely, that the best part 
of the play is utterly unrelated to the major plot. 

Love Tricks, as every critic notes, is full of echoes. 
Gorgon is the typical witty servant of Latin comedy. 
Selina's disguise as a shepherd suggests Rosalind and 
many more. The Welshman, Jenkin, recalls Fluellen 
of Henry V ; and the two scenes in which he carries 
on a lively conversation with an echo are of a piece 
with the echo scenes in The Old Wives* Tale^ in 
Cynthia s Revels,^ and in The Duchess of Malfif' — 
the classical joke of an answer that echoes the final 
syllables of the question. Finally, the quarrel be- 
tween Bubulcus, Gorgon, and Jenkin, as to which 
shall speak the epilogue, recalls a similar quarrel in 
Cynthia's Revels as to which of three children shall 
be prologue; and the entire scene devoted to the 
School of Complement is in the style of Jonson. 

2 Peele, The Old Wives' Tale, line 372 et seq. 

^ Jonson, Cynthia s Revels, I, i. 

* Webster, The Duchess of Malfi, v, iii. 

[173] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

To conclude: Love Tricks is a patchwork of ro- 
mance, humors, manners, farce, pastoral, and masque. 
It may be, as Swinburne says, a "feebly preposterous 
and impotently imitative abortion, . . . the product 
of second-hand humor and second-rate sentiment";^ 
yet I cannot help believing that, perhaps for this very 
reason, it needs only appropriate music, costuming, 
and scenery, to make it an acceptable rival to the 
latest Broadway '^show." 

Very different from Love Tricks, both in subject 
and in unity of efifect, is Shirley's "second birth," 
The Maid's Revenge, licensed February 9, 1625/6. 
Dyce has said of this, "Though The Maid's Revenge 
has some impressive scenes, it is perhaps the worst of 
Shirley's tragedies."^ Taken literally, this criticism 
of Dyce is not untrue ; yet it gives the casual reader 
an erroneous impression. Let us admit that this play 
is "the worst of Shirley's tragedies." Should we wish 
it otherwise? Would we not have our apprentice 
least successful in his first attempt? Let us grant that 
it is not so well written as The Traitor or The Car- 
dinal. May it not be, none the less, a fairly good 
tragedy, especially for so young a dramatist? 

The story deals with two noble families of Portu- 

^ A. C. Swinburne, "James Shirley," in The Fortnightly Review, 
XLVii (n.s.), 462-463. 
^ Dyce, in Works, i, xi. 

1:1743 



THE MAID'S REVENGE 

gal: the one consisting of the old lord Caspar de 
Vilarezo, his two daughters, Catalina and Berinthia, 
and his son Sebastiano; the other, of Antonio and his 
sister, Castabella. Antonio loves Berinthia; but, 
finding that her father insists that Berinthia shall 
receive no suitors till her older sister is married, he 
pretends to pay court to Catalina. The latter falls 
in love with him, and then discovers his duplicity. 
She locks up Berinthia, and arranges to have her car- 
ried off by Antonio's rival and then poisoned. An- 
tonio, warned by his servant, arrives first upon the 
scene and bears off Berinthia to his own castle, where 
his sister Castabella receives her in all honor. Sebas- 
tiano, who is at once Berinthia's brother and An- 
tonio's dearest friend, comes to demand satisfaction, 
accepts their explanation, and remains to woo An- 
tonio's sister, Castabella. 

Catalina, however, insists upon revenge. At her 
instigation, old Vilarezo orders Sebastiano, on pain 
of a father's curse, to kill Antonio ; and here we have 
the tragic situation: two young men, close friends, 
each about to marry the other's sister, compelled to 
fight to the death over a matter in which they, per- 
sonally, are in absolute accord. Despite the implor- 
ing protests of Berinthia and Castabella, their bro- 
thers and lovers fight. Both seconds are slain, and 
then Antonio. 

1:1753 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The final act deals with Berinthia's revenge upon 
her brother and sister, whom she holds jointly respon- 
sible for the death of her lover. She poisons the lat- 
ter, stabs the former, and then stabs herself. Mean- 
while Castabella, sister of the dead Antonio, has 
come, disguised as a page, to offer her services to her 
mourning lover. Scarcely has she arrived ere Sebas- 
tiano falls by Berinthia's hand: Castabella is left 
with the aged Vilarezo to mourn the dead. 

For the second production of a youthful school- 
master. The Maid's Revenge is a successful melo- 
drama. The plot is based upon a struggle genuinely 
tragic, and is presented without serious violations of 
unity. Even the comic scene at the apothecary's gives 
facts essential to the story and at the same time af- 
fords necessary relief. The serious characters, al- 
though not greatly conceived, are yet acceptably 
done; and the comic characters, such as the braggart 
suitor and the blunt soldier, are pleasing examples of 
types which Shirley especially enjoyed. The larger 
portion of the play, moreover, is expressed in smooth 
blank verse. Against the disparaging criticism of 
Dyce, already quoted, I am glad to set the words of 
Schelling: ''The Maid's Revenge ... is a tragedy 
of much promise, swift in action, capably plotted, 
and fluently and lucidly written." "^ 

^ Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, il, 322. 



THE WEDDING 

The Wedding, acted— if Fleay be right^— on May 
31, 1626, is a comedy of London life and manners. 
Unlike Love Tricks, The Wedding is no mere med- 
ley but a well-constructed play. It is, moreover, a 
play representative of Shirley's comedies of manners 
at their best: a realistic picture not of the coarser 
side of London life but of fashionable society; a pic- 
ture, witty, "humorous," but not satiric; with a real- 
ism which, in the scenes of deepest feeling, the poet's 
alchemy well-nigh transmutes into romanticism. 

The major plot is characterized by strong scenes 
and striking situations. As the hero, Beauford, is 
on the point of marrying Gratiana, his cousin Mar- 
wood declares to him that he, Marwood, has sinfully 
enjoyed the bride. In the duel resulting from this 
accusation, Marwood falls, but with his dying breath 
affirms the truth of his assertion. Beauford, return- 
ing to the house where all are waiting for the cere- 
mony, takes Gratiana apart, repeats Marwood's accu- 
sation, and refuses to credit her denials. He then 
withdraws to await his own arrest for the slaying of 
Marwood. Gratiana, meanwhile, has found a cham- 
pion in Captain Landby, nephew of Justice Landby, 
a figure in the minor plot. Captain Landby conceals 
Gratiana in his uncle's house, and then takes from her 
to Beauford a letter stating that, by the time he re- 

* Fleay, in Anglia, viii, 405. 

1:1773 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ceives it, she will be dead by drowning. The captain, 
however, is not her only supporter. Millicent, her 
page, claims to have knowledge bearing on the case, 
and advises that Gratiana examine Cardona, her 
waiting-woman. As a result, Millicent goes pres- 
ently to Beauford's lodging, and places before him 
a great chest in which, says Millicent, is Marwood's 
body. As Marwood's relative, the page demands 
satisfaction for his death; but first he insists that 
Beauford listen to the evidence of Cardona, whom, 
to gain Gratiana, Marwood had corrupted. This 
evidence proves that Marwood enjoyed not Gratiana 
but Cardona's daughter Lucibel. Beauford, now 
conscious of his fatal error, opens the chest, finds 
within it not the dead Marwood but the living Gra- 
tiana, and then, just as all joy seems to have returned, 
is once more driven to despair: officers enter to arrest 
him for the murder of Marwood. Brought before 
Justice Landby, Beauford offers no defense. Gra- 
tiana pleads for him without avail. When all hope 
seems vanished, the justice asks the whereabouts of 
Marwood's body, and, at that, Marwood himself 
steps forward living. They then demand that he 
admit his error and Gratiana's innocence. When he 
refuses, they summon in Cardona. She, repeating 
her testimony, adds the circumstance that, since that 
night, her daughter Lucibel has not been seen. At 



THE WEDDING 

that, Millicent the page steps forward and reveals 
himself as Lucibel disguised. Marwood— a libertine 
reformed— declares that he will begin his recompense 
by marrying Lucibel. 

The subplot of The Wedding concerns the rivalry 
of three suitors for the hand of Jane, daughter of 
Justice Landby. Two of these suitors are characters 
of humor: Lodam, fat and ever eating; Rawbone, a 
usurer, thin as a result of his penurious abstinence. 
The third is Haver, a young gentleman of good birth 
and character but restricted means, who, disguised 
under the name of Jasper, has become servant to 
Rawbone that he may be employed as a messenger to 
Mistress Jane. In the minds of Jane and of her fa- 
ther. Haver is the favored suitor; but the justice, 
desiring to test his daughter, pretends to favor Raw- 
bone. Haver, knowing both his rivals to be cowards, 
inspires Rawbone to challenge Lodam to a duel, 
promising to fight disguised in Rawbone's place. 
Lodam, knowing Rawbone to be as much of a coward 
as he is himself, makes great boasts, but yields at 
Haver's first attack. Captain Landby, who has 
watched the duel for his uncle, then brings all the 
participants before the justice. Before Rawbone 
can make Haver reexchange clothes. Justice Landby 
commands Jane instantly to marry the supposed 
Rawbone. The protests of the real Rawbone are 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

fruitless; and the lovers, never suspecting that Jane's 
father knows the identity of the victorious duelist, 
hasten to be married before he shall discover his mis- 
take. 

To the critic in pursuit of echoes, The Wedding 
has more than one Shaksperian detail. Just as Selina 
in Love Tricks suggested, in her shepherd weeds, the 
figure of Rosalind in As You Like It, so Millicent- 
Lucibel, the page, recalls Julia of Two Gentlemen 
of Verona and Viola of Twelfth Night. Yet she 
might with equal propriety recall Beaumont and 
Fletcher's Euphrasia-Bellario of Philaster or Shir- 
ley's own Castabella of The Maid's Revenge. But for 
chronology, Massinger's Maria-Ascanio of The 
Bashful Lover (licensed 1635) might have been 
added to the list. The complaints of Camelion, Raw- 
bone's starving servant, suggest remotely the similar 
complaints of Launcelot Gobbo, famished in the 
house of Shylock. Beauford's accusation against his 
bride Gratiana and his subsequent belief that she is 
dead may be compared with Claudio's accusation in 
Much Ado About Nothing and Hero's period of 
concealment; but in Shirley's play, the bridegroom is 
less of a blackguard, and the denouement a bit more 
plausible. Most nearly Shaksperian are the duel be- 
tween Lodam and the supposed Rawbone, and the 
challenge that precedes it — both scenes strongly remi- 
niscent of Twelfth Night. The real atmosphere of 



THE WEDDING 

the play, however, is not that of Shakspere but that 
of Jonson or that of Fletcher — in his realistic work. 
Most evident in the humors of Lodam and of Raw- 
bone, this realistic atmosphere permeates the entire 
play and is especially perceptible in the Landby 
household: above all else, The Wedding is a comedy 
of London life and manners. 

Our outline of The Wedding has made evident, I 
hope, the strength of the play with respect to dra- 
matic struggle and surprise. In another respect, 
however, it is less successful: although each of its 
plots taken by itself is well constructed, the play as 
a whole lacks unity in the highest sense. Between the 
two plots there is no inevitable relation: Justice 
Landby and his nephew are the only characters that 
appear in both, and they are vital to neither. In 
short, the play is merely salt and sugar in the same 
receptacle; a physical mixture, not a chemical com- 
pound; two plays, not one. This fault is frequent in 
non-Shaksperian comedy; but we must remember its 
existence when we read the otherwise acceptable criti- 
cism of Dyce: "This comedy is one of Shirley's most 
perfect productions, equally admirable in its serious 
and in its broadly humorous scenes; its plot is con- 
ducted with infinite art, and its characters are 
strongly drawn and happily contrasted."^ 

^ Dj^ce, in Works, i, xiii. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Slight as are the three plays considered in this 
chapter, they indicate something of the scope, if not 
of the strength, of Shirley's subsequent work. In the 
more serious portions of The Weddings we note a 
faint influence of Shaksperian romantic comedy: an 
echo, perhaps, from Much Ado, In the masque and 
pastoral of Love Tricks^ in the girl page of The 
Wedding and The Maid^s Revenge, and in the love, 
the hate, the duel, the poisoning, the stabbing, and 
the suicide of the latter play, we note the influence 
of Fletcherian pastoral, and dramatic romance, and 
romantic tragedy. And, most conspicuous of all, in 
the witty servant and the country gull of Love Tricks, 
in the usurer of The Wedding, in the school of com- 
plement in the former play, and in the low-comedy 
scenes in the latter, we note the influence of Jonsonian, 
of Fletcherian — and possibly Middletonian— comedy 
of manners and of humors. Shirley, unquestionably, 
is a student of his predecessors. Unquestionably, also, 
he is as yet divided in his allegiance between realism 
and romanticism. How far he is to profit by his 
study, and with which school he is ultimately to cast 
his lot, shall be considered in the chapters following. 



U^^'} 



CHAPTER VII 

THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONTINUED 

THE WITTY FAIR ONE AND 
THE GRATEFUL SERVANT 

FROM February lo, 1624/5, to November 4, 
1626, Shirley, as we have noted, had pro- 
duced three tolerably successful plays — 
Love Tricks J The Maid's Revenge, and The Wed- 
ding, — together with a fourth play. The Brothers of 
1626, the identity of which is now uncertain. Four 
plays, however, within so brief a time, meant hasty 
work. We are glad to note, therefore, that, in the 
years immediately following, our dramatist allowed 
himself to write more leisurely. In the four years 
and a half from November 4, 1626, to May 4, 1631, 
Shirley contented himself with the production of 
three plays: The Witty Fair One, The Faithful Ser- 
vant (published as The Grateful Servant)^ and The 
Traitor. These three, unlike the plays before con- 
sidered, show careful workmanship. Like them, 
however, they represent continued experiment in sev- 
eral types of drama: The Witty Fair One is a realistic 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

comedy of manners and of humors; The Grateful 
Servant is romantic comedy with a realistic under- 
plot; and The Traitor is romantic tragedy. Of these 
three plays, The Traitor, because of its importance, 
I reserve for Chapter VIII ; The Witty Fair One and 
The Grateful Servant are the subject of the present 
chapter. 

The Witty Fair One, licensed October 3, 1628, is a 
comedy of London life and manners. Its major plot 
presents the stratagems of the rich and witty Violetta 
to avoid marriage with the rich and witless Sir Nich- 
olas Treedle— her father's choice— and to bestow 
her hand upon her poor but adoring lover Aimwell. 
Against her purpose, the principal obstacle is the 
watchfulness of Brains, her father's servant. Through 
a friend, she sends to Aimwell an oral message which 
seemxS to say to him his love is hopeless. He, how- 
ever, finds in her purposed ambiguities a favorable 
interpretation, and succeeds in sending her a letter. 
Brains hears her read it, and presently detects her 
maid delivering to Aimwell a reply. That night, 
Brains steals from Violetta's chamber what he sup- 
poses to be Aimwell's letter. When Aimwell boasts 
to a friend his note from Violetta, he opens it to find 
that it is the note he sent to her, seemingly returned 
in scorn. He resolves to love no more. Brains, on 
the other hand, discovers that the letter he has stolen 



THE WITTY FAIR ONE 

is not Aimwell's note to Violetta but her intended 
answer— the best evidence that Brains could wish. 
He addresses it to her father, and sends it to him by 
Sensible, Violetta's maid. Violetta, worried at the 
loss of her letter— the note from Aimwell, as she 
thinks,— offers to deliver the missive that the maid is 
taking to her father, so that the maid may search for 
the missing note. As a result, Violetta hands her fa- 
ther the note that she has written to Aimwell: an 
acceptance of Aimwell's love and an exhortation to 
prevent her marriage to Sir Nicholas. Her father 
reads it, rages, discharges Sensible, summons Brains 
to stand guard over Violetta, and orders that the mar- 
riage to Sir Nicholas take place next morning. Vio- 
letta, however, sends to Aimwell by Sensible a fur- 
ther message; and he prepares accordingly. She, 
meanwhile, pretends to be reconciled to the mar- 
riage; obtains, through Sir Nicholas, permission to 
go shopping— with Brains as escort; and stirs up the 
vain tutor of the foolish knight to waylay Brains and 
bear her off. When the tutor attacks, he receives a 
beating from the efficient Brains; but during the 
scuffle. Sensible, masked and dressed like her mis- 
tress, takes Violetta's place. Presently, accompanied 
by officers, the tutor pursues Brains, causes his arrest, 
and— as he thinks— valiantly bears off his lady-love. 
He, however, is waylaid in turn by Sir Nicholas and 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

his servants; and the knight, likewise supposing that 
Sensible is Violetta, carries her off to the parson who 
shall "divide"' them into man and wife. Violetta, 
meanwhile, has been duly married to the waiting 
Aimwell. Such is the m.ajor plot: and of it. well may 
Schelling say: "Seldom in the old drama has the 
principle of climax and surprise been so cleverly em- 
ployed." ^ 

I wonder, however, whether Schelling has as- 
sumed correctly that Violetta is "the witt\- fair one.'' 
Shirley's own auditors, it seems to me. would have 
applied that title rather to Penelope. Violetta's 
cousin. This ingenious maiden, who makes the minor 
plot revolve about her, is in love with Fowler, a well- 
born libertine. She realizes fully that Fowler— like 
many another hero of the comedy of manners — in- 
tends only to betray her: but she resolves to out^'it 
him. and to lead him to the altar. His pretext— that 
of Volpone in his pursuit of Celia, Corvino's wife- — 
she seemingly accepts. She consents to a meeting in 
her chamber, admits him. puts him to shame; and 
then pretends that he is dying in her presence. Her 
friends assist her in the jest. Fowler hears that he is 
dead; that his funeral is about to be solemnized. He 
attends it, hears his evil life discussed, and for a time 

* Schellir.z. Elizabethan Drama, II, 289. 
- Jonson, J''-/ipone, n, iii; m. vi. 



THE WITTY FAIR ONE 

he imagines that he is really dead. He reads the 
elegies and epitaphs prepared for his solace by the 
witty fair one. Among them are the touching lines : 

How he died, some do suppose ; 
How he lived, the parish knows. 
Whether he's gone to Heaven or hell. 
Ask me not ; I cannot tell.^ 

Presently he addresses Penelope, and she answers 
him. He asks her whether she is talking to a dead 
man. She answers, Yes, to a man dead to all noble 
thoughts and— until his reformation— dead to her. 
As she is about to vow utter renunciation of him, he 
interrupts her with a promise to reform his life and 
an offer of honorable marriage. Her father approves 
the match, and she accepts. If such an elaborate 
pleasantry be wit, Penelope is the witty fair one. 

The plot-structure of this play is excellent; and 
yet, with all its excellences, two faults appear. The 
first— a fault appearing in many comedies of the day 
— is the same as that which we noted in The Wed- 
ding: major and minor plots exist each for itself. As 
Sir Nicholas would put it, they have been divided 
into man and wife. Between the action centering 
about Fowler and Penelope and that centering about 
Brains, Aimwell, and Violetta, there is no necessary 

^ The Witty Fair One, V, iii; Works, I, 357. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

connection. The second fault is that, in order to pre- 
serve suspense, Shirley violates all reasonable chro- 
nology. In Act III, scene iii, he makes Aimwell open 
for the first time a letter that was handed him at the 
end of Act II. Yet, as appears from Brains's all-night 
watch in Violetta's chamber (ill, i), and from Sir 
Nicholas's morning greeting to his tutor (ill, ii), a 
whole night has passed between the time of Aimwell's 
receipt of the letter and his opening it. Shall we 
believe that a letter from Violetta meant no more to 
Aimwell? If it were so, it was a grievous fault. If 
not, what think you of the dramatist? 

In Shirley's characters we find less to censure. 
Most interesting among them all, are the witless Sir 
Nicholas and the omniscient Brains. The former 
first appears under the ministrations of his tutor. As 
for the divisions of the continent into peninsula, isth- 
mus, and promontory, he remembers some such 
things, but has forgotten them. As for his globe, he 
will have it stand in his hall, for his tenants to wonder 
at, instead of the Book of Martyrs. As for studying 
England, he is resolved to be ignorant of his own 
country; say no more on it.^ After this we are pre- 
pared to accept Aimwell's "character" of the knight: 
". . . His inward senses are sound, for none comes 

* The Witty Fair One, II, i; Works, I, 293-294. 



THE WITTY FAIR ONE 

from him; he speaks words, but no matter. . . ."^ 
From such a character flow errors innumerable. He 
begins by saluting not his betrothed but her cousin : 

Sir Nicholas [to Penelope]. Lady, and mistress of 
my heart, which hath long melted for you, — 
RiCHLEY. This is my daughter. 
Sir Nicholas. Then it melted for you, lady.® 

His tutor has supplied him with verses for his lady- 
love; but Sir Nicholas presently admits they are not 
his, and offers in comparison some absurd lines that 
he has made himself: 

Her foot is feat with diamond toes, 
But she with legs of ruby goes. 

Her head is opal, neck of sapphire. 
Breast carbuncles, shine like a fire ; 
And, the naked truth to tell ye, 
The very mother of pearl her belly. 
How can she choose but hear my groans. 
That is composed of precious stones P'''^ 

After much display of wit and valor, which makes 
one think that perhaps Sir Nicholas is himself the 
witty fair one, he ends, as we have noted, by marrying 

5 The Witty Fair One, II, ii; Works, i, 306. 

^ Ibid.j p. 307. 

■^ Ibid.j III, ii; Works, l, 312-313. 

0^92 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Violetta's maid— poor thing!— and, fearing to be 
jeered for his mistake, he maintains that he has not 
been cheated and that Sensible shall be his own lady- 
bird ; for "a lady is a lady, a bargain is a bargain, and 
a knight is no gentleman." ^ 

As for Brains the watch-dog. Brains the om- 
niscient, Brains the argus-eyed, I cannot better ex- 
press his character and, at the same time, his humor 
and its cure, than by quoting one of his later speeches : 

It was my boast that I was never cozened in my life. 
Have I betrayed so many plots, discovered letters, de- 
ciphered characters, stript knavery to the skin, and laid 
open the very soul of conspiracy, deserved for my cunning 
to be called Brains both town and country over, and now 
to forfeit them, to see them drenched in a muddy strata- 
gem, cheated by a woman, and a pedantical lousy word- 
monger! It is abominable; patience, I abhor thee. I 
desire him that bids me go hang myself, which is the way 
to Surgeon's Hall? I will beg to have my skull cut. I 
have a suspicion my brains are filched, and my head has 
been late stuffed with woodcocks' feathers.^ 

Such is The Witty Fair One. Like The Wedding 
—even more than The Wedding — it is a comedy of 
London life and manners : a play in the style of Jon- 
son, with Jonson's careful structure, Jonson's truth 

^ The Witty Fair One, V, iii; Works, I, 361. 
9 Ibid., p. 359. 



THE GRATEFUL SERVANT 

to life, Jonson's comic characters of humor; yes, and 
the repulsive intrigue of Jonson's Volpone. From a 
dramatic point of view, the play is excellent. Mor- 
ally, however, the underplot is a body of material 
that not all the wit of Penelope can fumigate, and 
that could be expurgated only by annihilation. That 
the editor of the Mermaid Shirley should include 
The Witty Fair One among his five "Best Plays," is 
a matter for regret. With all the wealth of Shirley's 
romantic plays from which to choose, why should 
Gosse select but comedies of manners — and of man- 
ners so abhorrent? 

Unlike The Witty Fair One, The Grateful Ser- 
vant, licensed as The Faithful Servant November 3, 
1629, is in its main plot a pure romantic comedy, 
comparable in subject-matter and in poetic charm 
with the story of Shakspere's Viola. In its underplot, 
however, it is a realistic picture of a cynical libertine 
and of his reformation by means of an elaborate jest 
— a picture in which the repulsiveness of the theme is 
all but forgotten amid the grimness of the humor. 

The Duke of Savoy, indignant that Milan has de- 
nied him the once-promised hand of Princess Leo- 
nora, announces that he will woo to be his wife a 
beautiful gentlewoman of Savoy, Cleona. At the 
duke's capital have just arrived Foscari, a nobleman 
formerly betrothed to this Cleona but by her believed 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

to have died in foreign travel, and Dulcino, a beau- 
tiful youth whom Foscari has rescued from a band of 
outlaws and who, in gratitude, has become Foscari's 
page. Foscari, ignorant of the duke's addresses, sends 
Dulcino to Cleona to announce his own arrival. At 
Cleona's, Dulcino meets the duke; and the latter is 
so strongly reminded of his lost Leonora that, for the 
moment, he breaks off his wooing. Cleona, although 
flattered by the duke's addresses, is true to Foscari 
and is rejoiced to find him living. Foscari, however, 
in exaggerated devotion, resolves to show his love to 
her by withdrawing his claim in favor of the duke. 
To this end, he arranges himself to enter a Benedic- 
tine monastery, informs the astonished duke of his 
resolution and its motive, and orders Dulcino to tell 
Cleona that the news that Foscari was alive is false— 
a tale intended only to gain her momentary favor — 
and that Dulcino now reveals the deception lest it 
prevent her marriage to the duke. This message Dul- 
cino presently delivers, and then, urged by Foscari, 
consents to become with him a Benedictine, and fear- 
fully awaits the arrival of the holy father who is to 
arrange for their admission. The holy father proves 
to be Valentio, with whom Dulcino had been travel- 
ing when the outlaws set upon them ; and he immedi- 
ately greets Dulcino as "dear Leonora." When the 
duke, Cleona, and all the lords and ladies of the 

1:192] 



THE GRATEFUL SERVANT 

court, have assembled by invitation of the abbot to 
witness the admission of Foscari and Dulcino to the 
Benedictine order, Father Valentio reveals the iden- 
tity of the latter to the duke : 

Leonora, daughter to the late Gonzaga, Duke of Mi- 
lan, fearing she should be compell'd to marry her uncle, 
in the habit of a page and the conduct of Father Valentio, 
came to Savoy to try the love and honour of his excellence, 
who once solicited by his ambassador— ^"^ 

The joyous duke reveals the whole situation to Cle- 
ona; and the play ends with the union of the dis- 
guised princess to the duke and of Cleona to Foscari. 
Side by side with this romantic plot is set the realis- 
tic picture of the duke's brother, Lodwick the liber- 
tine, his depravity and its reformation. At the open- 
ing of the play we find him refusing to accompany 
the duke a-wooing, because his wronged wife Astella 
is living with Cleona; and presently we find him 
commanding his follower Piero to commit adultery 
with his wife so that he may have adequate grounds 
for a divorce. His former guardian, the aged lord 
Grimundo, undertakes his reformation. Grimundo, 
after fruitless exhortation, pretends that he has all this 
time but played the hypocrite, and offers to take the 
libertine to a mistress more glorious than any he has 

^^ The Grateful Servant, v, ii; Works, ii, 90. 

1:193: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

yet enjoyed. In fulfilment, Grimundo brings him to 
a wondrous garden. A masque of nymphs and satyrs 
welcomes them. Strange music sounds. The lady of 
the garden fascinates him with her beauty. But Lod- 
wick is conscious rather of the uncanny horror of the 
place and of its mistress : she hints at strange powers, 
promises him unlimited dominion, and finally admits 
she is a devil. Shuddering, he begs permission to 
depart. He hurries home, only to find that Piero is 
with Astella. Piero insists that he has fulfilled his 
master's orders, and looks for his reward. Lodwick 
responds by an attempt to slay him. This brings 
Piero to the truth : Astella's virtue has resisted all en- 
treaty. Taking his wife, Lodwick hastens to the duke 
his brother. They arrive close upon the discovery 
that the Benedictine candidates are Foscari and the 
princess. Before the abbot, duke, and court, Lod- 
wick declares that he ''new marries" Astella, and de- 
mands justice against Lord Grimundo. At that in- 
stant, to his horror, there enters the lady of the 
garden, the she-devil. Lodwick redoubles his vows 
of reformation. The she-devil throws back her veil 
and reveals herself as Grimundo's wife Belinda. 

In both its minor and its major plot, this play is 
capitally conceived and executed. That the two plots 
have no inevitable relation, we may admit; but the 
skill with which they have been interwoven is like- 

1:194] 



THE GRATEFUL SERVANT 

wise evident. In neither plot is there a moment^s 
dullness. This interest results in part from the clever 
and effective dialogue; but it results even more from 
the striking nature of the situations. Scene after 
scene, the interest never wanes. The opening tilt be- 
tween Lodwick and the duke, Grimundo's warning 
to Foscari, Cleona's welcome to Dulcino's message, 
the courtship of the duke and his departure, Foscari's 
resolution, Dulcino's second message and Cleona's 
grief, Grimundo's manoeuvers against the libertine, 
Lodwick's instigation of Piero, Foscari's visit to the 
duke, his avowal of his renunciation, and the duke's 
acceptance of the sacrifice. Father Valentio's recogni- 
tion of the princess, Lodwick's adventures with the 
supposed succuba, Piero's attempted adultery with 
Astella and his subsequent meeting with her husband, 
and, finally, the grand assembly at the abbey with its 
threefold revelation— each scene holds reader or 
auditor intent, a dramaturgic triumph. 

In characterization, as in scene-conception. The 
Grateful Servant marks a forward step in Shirley's 
dramaturgy. In The Witty Fair One, Shirley was 
content to prepare for the entrance of Sir Nicholas 
by means of a lengthy ^'character" in the mouth of 
Aimwell. In The Grateful Servant, he relies rather 
upon innumerable minor touches— the chance re- 
marks and action of all the persons of the play and 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

especially of the one to be described. He makes his 
readers or auditors suppose that they are becoming 
acquainted with the people of the play precisely as 
they would become acquainted with people in real 
life. He even goes so far as to make Soranzo remark, 
when Lodwick has scarcely spoken once, ^'Still the 
same wild prince. There needs no character where 
he is, to express him."^^ Of the as yet unmentioned 
persons in this play, Jacomo is the one most entertain- 
ing. He is Cleona's steward, foolish and ambitious. 
He argues: "If his grace come hither a suitor to my 
lady, as we have some cause to suspect, and after 
marry her, I may be a great man, and ride upon a 
reverend mule by patent. There is no end of my pre- 
ferment. . . . Methinks I talk like a peremptory 
statesman already; I shall quickly learn to forget my- 
self when I am great in office; I will oppress the 
subject, flatter the prince, take bribes on both sides, 
do right to neither, serve heaven so far as my profit 
will give me leave, and tremble only at the sum- 
mons of a parliament." ^^ So he domineers over the 
household, and over Foscari's messenger, the prin- 
cess; smiles or frowns according to the direction of 
the wind of favor; puts himself in the way to meet 
the duke, and so has an opportunity to show his 

^1 The Grateful Servant, I, i; Works, II, 8. 
12 Ibid., II, i; Works, ii, 24-25. 



THE GRATEFUL SERVANT 

Statesmanship: "With your gracious pardon, if I 
were worthy to be one of your counsellors—" "What 
then?" "I would advise you, as others do, to take 
your own course. Your grace knows best what is to 
be done." '^ 

If we compare The Witty Fair One and The 
Grateful Servant with the three plays previously dis- 
cussed, we feel that Shirley is growing in his stage- 
craft and in his grasp of human life. In respect to 
unity of plot, he shows, to be sure, no consistency of 
standard: even after his tolerable attainment in The 
Maid^s Revenge, he is content in general to follow 
the more loosely constructed models of his day. In 
respect, however, to effectiveness of scene, and in re- 
spect to comic characterization, Shirley is already 
achieving considerable success. Brains and Sir Nich- 
olas in The Witty Fair One, and Jacomo, the Mal- 
volio of The Grateful Servant, are memorable, if not 
wholly original, creations. Each play contains much 
that is repulsive ; but, besides this, each contains much 
genuine and wholesome fun; and The Grateful Ser- 
vant, in its romantic parts, manifests a delicacy of 
sentiment that we shall learn later to recognize as 
typical of Shirley. 

^^ The Grateful Servant , III, ii; Works, li, 50. 



1:1973 



CHAPTER VIII 
THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONTINUED 

THE TRAITOR 

UNLIKE its two immediate predecessors, 
The Witty Fair One and The Grateful 
Servant, Shirley^s The Traitor, licensed 
May 4, 163 1, is a romantic tragedy. 

In the interrelating of the several actions and in the 
high effectiveness of individual scenes, this play is 
conspicuously well constructed. Its central figure is 
Lorenzo— known to history as Lorenzino de' Medici 
—kinsman and favorite of Alexander, Duke of Flor- 
ence. Lorenzo desires to become duke; and, to this 
end, besides creating a faction in the city, he begins 
two intrigues. One is to weaken his chief rival, 
Cosmo, by preventing his marriage to the wealthy 
Oriana ; the other is to destroy the duke by involving 
him in deadly feud with a fiery noble named Sciarrha. 

Up to the middle of the play, Lorenzo's fortunes 
rise triumphantly. He vindicates himself from a 
charge of conspiracy against the duke. He incites 
the duke to select as the object of his lust the beautiful 



THE TRAITOR 

sister of Sciarrha, Amidea. He informs Sciarrha of 
the duke's resolve and of the duke's command that 
Sciarrha be his pander, and plots with Sciarrha for 
vengeance on the duke. When Sciarrha tells his sis- 
ter that he must kill the duke, she begs him rather 
to admit their sovereign to her chamber and leave the 
rest to her. Sciarrha consents, but hides behind the 
hangings. When the duke, deaf to her entreaties, 
attempts to force her to his will, Amidea draws a 
poniard, wounds her own arm, and declares that she 
will slay herself rather than be ravished. The duke 
interposes, turns penitent, and begs forgiveness. With 
that, Sciarrha comes forth, confesses his plot to slay 
the duke, and, to convince him, hides him behind the 
arras that he may overhear a conference with Lo- 
renzo. The latter, however, is suspicious. When 
Sciarrha says that he has killed the duke, Lorenzo 
feigns utter ignorance and detestation of the deed, 
and starts to give the alarm. Sciarrha draws his 
sword upon Lorenzo ; but the duke breaks forth and 
interposes, declares that they have misunderstood 
each other, and commands that they be friends. Thus 
is the first attempt of Lorenzo overthrown ; but as yet 
he is himself secure. 

Meanwhile, however, Lorenzo's second intrigue 
has made successful progress. Cosmo, on a pretense 
of friendship to Pisano, but chiefly influenced by his 

1:1993 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

terror of Lorenzo, has yielded Oriana to Pisano; and 
Pisano, without the knowledge of Sciarrha, has 
broken his own engagement with Amidea, and has 
gained the consent of Oriana's mother to his new be- 
trothal. When Sciarrha seeks vengeance on Lorenzo, 
the latter first places Sciarrha at the mercy of his 
swordsmen, then frees him with well-feigned gener- 
osity, and finally convinces him that the reformation 
of the duke should make them both again his loyal 
subjects. Then it is that Lorenzo ( and Shirley) , with 
consummate skill, brings his second intrigue to bear 
upon his first. He permits Sciarrha to discover Pi- 
sano's breach of faith to Amidea, stirs him to ven- 
geance on Pisano, persuades the duke that he shall 
yet enjoy Amidea, follows Sciarrha as the latter stabs 
Pisano on his marriage morn, arrests him, promises 
a pardon on condition that he yield Amidea to the 
duke, threatens that, unless he yield, his sister shall be 
ravished, gains his pretended consent, and so leaves 
him maddening for a second murder. Lorenzo, seem- 
ingly, may yet be duke. 

Sciarrha tells Amidea that he must yield her to the 
duke or slay her. To save her brother from the latter 
crime, she pretends that she will suffer the duke to 
have his will. Sciarrha stabs her. Dying, she ex- 
plains that she did but seem consenting, to gain time; 
and to her younger brother she declares— like Desde- 

C200] 



THE TRAITOR 

mona— that her injury is self-inflicted. Intending 
vengeance on the duke, Sciarrha causes her body to 
be placed upon a bed in the room where the duke 
expects to meet her. The duke enters, is left alone, 
approaches, kisses the corpse, discovers she is dead. 
As he cries out, Lorenzo and a confederate enter. ''My 
Amidea's dead!" exclaims the duke. ''I prithee kill 
me!" They both attack him. As he falls, Sciarrha 
enters. Lorenzo tries to place on him the crime. 
They fight. Sciarrha kills Lorenzo— and then dies. 

Even so brief a summary as this, makes evident the 
skill of our dramatist in plot-construction. As to the 
interweaving of actions, The Traitor, in a modest 
way, suggests even that masterpiece, Othello. It 
needs but this comparison, however, to show the real 
point of difference between the greater and the lesser 
dramatist. The struggle in Othello is not primarily 
that between lago and the Moor, but rather that be- 
tween Othello's jealousy and his love ; and this strug- 
gle, the struggle that makes the play a tragedy, is 
not external but internal. This concentration of the 
contending forces within a single soul is what differ- 
entiates the plot-structure of the psychological trag- 
edy of Shakspere and of Webster from that of the 
romantic tragedies of minor Elizabethans. Of this 
internal struggle. The Traitor offers nothing; noth- 
ing of conflicting motives. The contest is merely be- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

tween Lorenzo on the one hand and Sciarrha, the 
duke, and Amidea on the other; and in this contest, 
each unwaveringly performs his part and takes the 
consequences: neither Sciarrha, nor Lorenzo, nor 
Amidea, nor the pliant duke, hesitates or regrets. 
For each, the struggle is external, not within. This 
qualification we must keep in mind when we speak 
of The Traitor as a great tragedy. As to plot-struc- 
ture, Shirley's conception has been greatly executed; 
but his conception itself is not the greatest. Only with 
the admission that it presents a struggle external, not 
internal, may the plot of The Traitor be accounted 
"great." 

What is true of the plot, is true also of the charac- 
ters: what Shirley attempts is not the highest; yet his 
achievement is such as to win even Swinburne's ap- 
probation. Lorenzo, Sciarrha, Amidea, each is a 
notable creation. Even the weakling duke is worth 
our study. 

In Lorenzo, who plays the title role, Shirley has 
created a notable villain : resourceful, daring, plausi- 
ble of tongue. Of his intrigue and its ambitious mo- 
tives, Shirley gives us excellent exposition even in the 
dozen lines of conversation between Lorenzo and Pe- 
truchio in the opening scene. Of his resourcefulness 
and plausibility, Shirley presents a most brilliant 
example in the second scene : the scene in which Lo- 

[202;] 



THE TRAITOR 

renzo, suddenly accused of treason, overwhelms his 
accusers by successive instances of his loyalty, and 
victoriously leads away his dupe to a night of dissi- 
pation. In the second act, Shirley again makes Lo- 
renzo's skill of tongue victorious: having aroused 
Sciarrha's rage by telling him of the duke's lust for 
Amidea, Lorenzo aggravates it by telling Sciarrha 
that the duke wills that he, the brother, be pander; 
turns it to treason by admitting his own disloyal plots ; 
and fires it to action by recalling to Sciarrha's mind 
the threatened rape of Amidea. Nor do Lorenzo's 
intuition and readiness desert him when, after the 
duke and Amidea and Sciarrha have made their 
peace (Act III, scene iii), Sciarrha endeavors to trap 
Lorenzo into a confession. But perhaps Shirley's 
characterization of Lorenzo shows to best advantage 
in the opening of Act IV, in which, after the soliloquy 
admitting the failure of his plots, Lorenzo seizes 
upon the visit of Sciarrha to persuade him that he, 
like Sciarrha, has become loyal at the duke's conver- 
sion; causes Sciarrha to discover Pisano's disloyalty 
to Amidea; and then, having revived the lustful de- 
sires of the duke, uses Sciarrha's purposed assassina- 
tion of Pisano as a means for bringing Sciarrha, 
Amidea, and the duke once more within his power. 
The extent of this power, however, he at length mis- 
calculates: and in this miscalculation, Shirley makes 

1:2033 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

occasion for Lorenzo's fall. When Lorenzo arrests 
Sciarrha for the assassination of Pisano, and suggests 
that Sciarrha purchase his pardon with his sister's 
shame, Lorenzo fails to see that he is rousing ven- 
geance not against the duke only, but against himself. 
When Lorenzo stabs the duke's picture that he may 
school himself to stab the duke, he presents not only 
a bit of effective melodrama, but also conspicuous 
evidence of his growing weakness. This weakness he 
again presents when, in the assassination of the duke, 
he stabs his victim not once but many times. Shirley 
in this has prepared us well for the catastrophe : the 
inability of the traitor longer to deceive Sciarrha or 
even to penetrate Sciarrha's purpose, and his inability 
to defend himself against Sciarrha's sword. 

In Sciarrha, Shirley has created another powerful 
figure: direct, fiery, easily deceived, yet ultimately 
capable of matching himself in subtlety even against 
the intrigues of Lorenzo. His fundamental charac- 
teristic, Shirley emphasizes in his first mention of 
Sciarrha: 

Prepare Sciarrha, but be very wise 
In the discovery; he is all touchwood.^ 

We are not surprised, therefore, when, at the opening 
of the second act, Shirley presents Sciarrha in the 

^ The Traitor, i, ii ; Works, li, I lO. 

1:2043 



THE TRAITOR 

midst of his outburst to Lorenzo. To the suggestion 
of Lorenzo, Sciarrha reacts so rapidly that he imag- 
ines each thought to be his own. The dishonor of 
Amidea, the dishonor to himself, Lorenzo's alleged 
enthusiasm for a commonwealth— all these motives 
sweep Sciarrha forward to his resolution to assassi- 
nate the duke. He tells the duke's commands to 
Amidea; he tests her constancy and that of Florio; 
he rejoices in their virtue ; and he vows that "the Tar- 
quin shall be entertain'd."^ Yet he consents to 
Amidea's attempt to win the young monarch to a 
nobler life, and, convinced of her success, defers his 
purpose. His directness and credulity, manifested in 
his inability to trick Lorenzo into a confession, be- 
come still more evident when, upon his visit of de- 
fiance to Lorenzo, he puts himself at the mercy of 
Lorenzo's swordsmen and— more dangerous— of Lo- 
renzo's words. He believes that Lorenzo has been 
won to loyalty and virtue ; and he never for a moment 
suspects Lorenzo's purpose in permitting him to 
learn, as if by accident, of Pisano's desertion of 
Amidea and purposed marriage to Oriana. But with 
his assassination of Pisano, Sciarrha begins to see the 
light. He becomes convinced of Lorenzo's treach- 
ery; he realizes at last that Amidea has no hope but 
death. He resolves to trick Lorenzo and the duke: 

2 The Traitor, II, i; Works, II, 120. 

1:2053 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

to send them not Amidea but Amidea's body; to seize 
that moment when his sister shall be nearest heaven, 
and by slaying her to save her honor. When, to save 
her brother from such guilt as this, Amidea pretends 
that she will pay Lorenzo's price, Sciarrha strikes. 
Too late they learn each other's motives : 

Again, again forgive me, Amidea, 

And pray for me. Live but a little longer. 

To hear me speak. My passion hath betray'd 

Thee to this wound, for which I know not whether 

I should rejoice or weep, since thou art virtuous. 

The duke, whose soul is black again, expects thee 

To be his whore. — Good Death, be not so hasty.— 

The agent for his lust, Lorenzo, has 

My oath to send thee to his bed : for otherwise. 

In my denial, hell and they decree, 

When I am dead, to ravish thee — mark that, 

To ravish thee ! — and I confess, in tears 

As full of sorrow as thy soul of innocence, 

In my religious care to have thee spotless, 

I did resolve, when I had found thee ripe 

And nearest heaven, with all thy best desires, 

To send thee to thy peace. Thy feign'd consent 

Hath brought thy happiness more early to thee, 

And saved some guilt. Forgive me altogether.^ 

Victorious in this, Sciarrha pursues his plan to lure 
the duke to Amidea's chamber. Lorenzo anticipates 

3 The Traitor, V, i; Works, II, 176. 

1:2063 



THE TRAITOR 

Sciarrha in the slaying of the duke, but fails to de- 
ceive Sciarrha as to his ultimate intent. Sciarrha 
slays Lorenzo, and so dies the victor. 

In Shirley's Lorenzo, v^e have seen a powerful 
character becoming ever weaker through the unnerv- 
ing effect of his own villainy; in Shirley's Sciarrha, a 
character equally powerful attaining ever greater 
self-control and insight through suffering and strug- 
gle. No such development appears in Shirley's duke. 
He does not grow, either for good or ill ; he merely 
vacillates. He believes Lorenzo's loyalty; he doubts 
it; he believes again. He desires Amidea; he turns 
virtuous; he desires again. He is unnerved by 
Amidea's dagger; unnerved by the mob; unnerved 
by Amidea's death ; and he dies under the hands of 
his "best and dearest friend" Lorenzo, with penance 
on his lips. In short, Shirley's Duke Alexander is a 
figure of consistent vacillation and weakness. 

In contrast with this vacillation and weakness in 
the duke, Shirley presents us, in Amidea, with a pic- 
ture of consistent strength. That Amidea grows, we 
cannot say; all that she is at her death is present, po- 
tentially, in her first appearance. Yet this very con- 
sistency—especially in contrast with the development 
of Sciarrha and the disintegration of Lorenzo— is not 
without its charm. Her silent horror when Sciarrha 
first tells her of the duke's desires; her resolution to 

1:2073 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

die rather than to yield her honor; her self-control 
when Pisano, without warning, cancels their be- 
trothal; and her determination that Sciarrha shall 
not know of this dishonor: all manifest the nobility 
of her character. That this nobility is more than a 
passive capacity for suffering, appears in Act III, 
scene iii, in her control over Sciarrha and the duke. 
That her nobility is not without the softer virtue of 
forgiveness appears in her words to Pisano and Ori- 
ana upon their wedding morn : 

Amidea. Not for my sake, but for your own, go back. 
Or take some other way; this leads to death. 
My brother— 

PiSANO. What of him ? 

Ami. Transported with 

The fury of revenge for my dishonour. 
As he conceives, for 'tis against my will. 
Hath vow'd to kill you in your nuptial glory. 
Alas ! I fear his haste. Now, good my lord. 
Have mercy on yourself. I do not beg 
Your pity upon me : I know too well 
You cannot love me now; nor would I rob 
This virgin of your faith, since you have pleas'd 
To throw me from your love. I do not ask 
One smile, nor one poor kiss; enrich this maid. 
Created for those blessings; but again 
I would beseech you, cherish your own life. 
Though I be lost for ever. 

[208] 



THE TRAITOR 

Alonzo. It Is worth 

Your care, my lord, if there be any danger. 

Pis. Alas I her grief hath made her wild, poor lady. 
I should not love Oriana to go back. 
Set forward. — Amidea, you may live 
To be a happier bride. Sciarrha is not 
So irreligious to profane these rites. 

Ami. Will you not then believe me? — Pray persuade 
him; 
You are his friends. — Lady, it will concern 
You most of all, indeed; I fear you'll weep 
To see him dead, as well as I. 

Pis. No more ; 

Go forward. 

Ami. I have done ; pray be not angry 

That still I wish you well ; may heaven divert 
All harms that threaten you ; full blessings crown 
Your marriage ! I hope there is no sin in this ; 
Indeed I cannot choose but pray for you. 
This might have been my wedding-day— 

Ori. Good heaven, 

I would it were ! My heart can tell, I take 
No joy in being his bride, none in your prayers. 
You shall have my consent to have him still ; 
I will resign my place, and wait on you. 
If you will marry him. 

Ami. Pray do not mock me ; 

But if you do, I can forgive you too. 

Ori. Dear Amidea, do not think I mock 
Your sorrow. By these tears, that are not worn 

1:2093 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

By every virgin on her wedding-day, 

I am compelled to give away myself: 

Your hearts were promised, but he ne'er had mine. 

Am I not wretched too ? 

Ami. Alas, poor maid! 

We two keep sorrow alive then, but I prithee. 
When thou art married, love him, prithee love him, 
For he esteems thee well ; and once a day 
Give him a kiss for me ; but do not tell him 
'Twas my desire ; perhaps 'twill fetch a sigh 
From him, and I had rather break my heart.* 

The nobility of character here evident in Amidea's 
forgiveness and resignation, appears again in her 
meeting w^ith her brother after he has slain Pisano. 
Weeping both for the dead and for the living, she 
begs that her ov^n death may purchase pardon for 
Sciarrha. When he says that he must slay her to 
preserve her, she tries to save him from the deed by 
pretending that she will yield her honor to the duke; 
when he stabs her, she forgives him; and to their bro- 
ther Florio declares that she herself "drew the 
weapon" to her heart. 

Such, then, are the leading characters in Shirley's 
Traitor: Lorenzo, Sciarrha, the duke, and Amidea. 
In Amidea, Shirley has created a character beautiful 
for its consistent virtue and its pathos ; in the duke, a 

* The Traitor, iv, if; Works, ii, 163-165. 



THE TRAITOR 

character contemptible for its weakness and its vacil- 
lation; in Sciarrha, a character primarily emotional 
that grows in wisdom; in Lorenzo, a character pri- 
marily intellectual that disintegrates from its own 
villainy. That none of these characters is built on 
an internal struggle, we must admit. And this exter- 
nality of struggle makes Shirley's characterization, 
like Shirley's plot-structure, less notable than that of 
Shakspere. This granted, however, Shirley's charac- 
terization in The Traitor deserves our highest praise. 
Each of the major figures is living and distinct, 
clearly contrasted with his fellows. With each re- 
reading of the play, we follow them with stronger 
interest. 

Before we leave The Traitor, two topics remain to 
be considered : the comic relief, and the verse. The 
comic element centers about the figure of Depazzi, a 
parvenu ennobled by Lorenzo's favor. In his case, 
perhaps, we should modify our judgment that the 
play shows no instance of internal struggle. In him, 
his loyalty to Lorenzo's interest struggles most comi- 
cally with his fears. When Lorenzo is accused of 
treason, Depazzi's frightened "asides" admitting all 
the charges, make spicy comment on his lord's de- 
nial. When his patron's plots have involved him 
more deeply still in treason, he causes his page to 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

arraign him before an imaginary court ; and when the 
page, rising to the occasion, charges him with a series 
of wholly imaginary crimes, Depazzi is so thor- 
oughly alarmed that he forgets himself, begins a real 
confession, beats the page, and finally dismisses him 
with gold. When Lof enzo's first attempt against the 
duke has failed, Depazzi brings him fifteen hundred 
crowns for permission to resign his post and flee the 
city. Not only is all this comic matter admirable 
foolingr in itself, but it is far more closely joined to 
the major plot than is usual outside of Shakspere. 

With regard to the verse, let us first examine a typi- 
cal passage from the opening act— the scene in which 
Lorenzo defends himself against the charge of trea- 
son. The passage following will serve our purpose: 

Lorenzo. . . . Ask this good counsellor, or these 

gentlemen, 
Whose faiths are tried, whose cares are always waking 
About your person, how have I appeared 
To them, that thus I should be rendered hateful 
To you and my good country? They are virtuous. 
And dare not blemish a white faith, accuse 
My sound heart of dishonour. Sir, you must 
Pardon my bold defence ; my virtue bleeds 
By your much easiness, and I am compelled 
To break all modest limits, and to waken 
Your memory (if It be not too late 

1:2123 



THE TRAITOR 

To say you have one) with the story of 
My fair deservings. Who, sir, overthrew 
With his designs, your late ambitious brother, 
Hippolito, who, like a meteor, threatened 
A black and fatal omen? 

Duke. 'Twas Lorenzo. 

Lor. Be yet as just, and say whose art directed' 
A countermine to check the pregnant hopes 
Of SalviatI, who, for his cardinal's cap, 
In Rome was potent, and here popular? * 

Duke. None but Lorenzo. 

Depazzi. Admirable traitor ! [Aside.'] 

Lor. Whose service was commended when the exiles. 
One of whose tribe accuseth me, had raised 
Commotions in our Florence ? When the hinge 
Of state did faint under the burthen, and 
The people sweat with their own fears, to think 
The soldier should inhabit their calm dwellings. 
Who then rose up your safety, and crushed all 
Their plots to air? 

Duke. Our cousin, dear Lorenzo. 

Lor. When he that should reward, forgets the men 
That purchased his security, 'tis virtue 
To boast a merit. With my services 
I have not starved your treasury; the grand 
Captain Gonzales accounted to King Ferdinand 
Three hundred thousands crowns for spies ; what bills 
Have I brought in for such intelligence ? 

Dep. I do grow hearty. [Aside,'] 

Duke. All thy actions 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Stand fresh before us, and confirm thou art 
Our best and dearest friend; thus we assure 
Our confidence ; they love us not that feed 
One jealous thought of our dear coz, Lorenzo.^ 

Now this is not a "purple passage" but a group of 
lines that, in most respects, is thoroughly representa- 
tive of the play throughout. It is not great poetry; 
yet, if read aloud, it will be found metrical, melodi- 
ous, and, above all, dramatically effective. As to the 
meter, it is varied but not irregular. The position of 
the pause changes pleasantly from line to line. In- 
versions, substitutions, and elisions occur, but not too 
often. In this particular passage, the percentage of 
run-on lines chances to be high. Had we examined a 
longer passage, however, we should have found that 
Shirley's use of run-on lines in The Traitor closely 
corresponds to that of Shakspere in his later plays. 
As to his meter, therefore, Shirley is here no anar- 
chist. As for melody, the passage quoted is not con- 
spicuous ; yet surely it is pleasing to the ear, as in the 
lines : 

A countermine to check the pregnant hopes 
Of Salviati, who, for his cardinal's cap. 
In Rome was potent, and here popular. 

5 The Traitor, I, ii; Works, II, 108-110. 

i;"4:] 



THE TRAITOR 

And finally, as for dramatic effectiveness, read the 
lines aloud and note how well they are adapted to 
delivery. Observe especially how frequently the final 
word of an unstopped line is one that logically de- 
serves distinction. Gentlemen, waking, appeared, 
hateful, virtuous, accuse, must, bleeds, compelled, 
waken, too late, overthrew, brother, threatened, Lo- 
renzo: in sixteen consecutive lines, but one concludes 
with an unemphatic ending. When the logical stress 
comes thus upon the final word, we need no longer 
pause to keep the verse-form perfect. 

In respect to mastery of verse, however, Shirley in 
The Traitor does something more than maintain this 
passing standard of acceptability. When occasion 
serves, as in the sad farewell of Amidea, his muse is 
genuinely poetic : 

Your fathers knew him well : one who will never 
Give cause I should suspect him to forsake me ; 
A constant lover; one whose lips, though cold, 
Distil chaste kisses. Though our bridal bed 
Be not adorned with roses, 'twill be green; 
We shall have virgin laurel, cypress, yew, 
To make us garlands ; though no pine do burn, 
Our nuptial shall have torches; and our chamber 
Shall be cut out of marble, where we'll sleep. 
Free from all care for ever. Death, my lord, 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

I hope, shall be my husband. Now, farewell. 
Although no kiss, accept my parting tear. 
And give me leave to wear my willow here.^ 

Sw^inburne, v^ho held that "as a rule" Shirley's 
plays are "wearisome and conventional, anaemic and 
invertebrate," "^ accounted The Traitor "^^the one play 
which gives its author a place among the tragic poets 
of Shakespeare's age and country." ^ In view of this 
all but entire disapproval of the plays of Shirley — a 
disapproval due, as we shall find, too often to his 
ignorance of the plays discussed— Swinburne's cor- 
dial interest in and favorable opinion of the plot, the 
characterization, and the verse of Shirley's Traitor, 
holds a significance that warrants some quotation : 

"The gravest error or defect of Shirley's work as 
a dramatist," writes Swinburne, "is usually percep- 
tible in the management of his underplots ; his hand 
was neither strong enough to weld nor skilful enough 
to weave them into unity or harmony with the main 
action; and the concurrent or alternate interests, 
through lack of coherence and fusion, become a 
source of mere worry and weariness to the distracted 
attention and the jaded memory. But the main plot 
of The Traitor, founded on the assassination or im- 

® The Traitor, iv, ii; Works, ll, 165. 

■^ In The Fortnightly Review, Lm (n.s., XLVii), 462. 

8 Ibid., 467. 

1:2163 



THE TRAITOR 

molation of Alessandro de' Medici by his kinsman 
Lorenzino, ... is very neatly and happily inter- 
woven with a story which at first sight recalls that 
of the fatal marriage and breach of promise through 
which the name of Buondelmonti had attained a sig- 
nificance so tragical for Florence three hundred and 
twenty-two years earlier. . . . This ... is skilfully 
and delicately adapted to bring into fuller relief the 
most beautiful figure on all the overcrowded stage of 
Shirley's invention. His place among our poets 
would be very much higher than it is if he could have 
left us but one or two others as thoroughly realized 
and as attractively presented as the noble and pa- 
thetic conception of Amidea. There is something in 
the part which reminds us of Beaumont's Aspatia; 
but even though the forsaken heroine of the elder 
poet has yet more exquisite poetry to utter than any 
that Shirley could produce, her character is less noble 
and attractive, the manner of her death is less natural 
and far less touching. The lover in either case is 
equally contemptible; but the heroic part of Sciarrha 
is as superior in truthfulness as it was inferior in 
popularity to the famous but histrionic part of the 
boastful martialist Melantius. The king in The 
Maid's Tragedy is certainly not better drawn than 
his equally licentious but less tyrannous counterpart 
in The Traitor; and the very effective scene in which 

1:2173 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Calianax denounces Melantius to the king, only to be 
stormed down and put to silence by the denial of his 
accomplice and the laughing incredulity of the vic- 
tim, is surpassed by the admirable device in which the 
chief conspirator's superb and subtle audacity of re- 
source confounds the loyalty of Sciarrha and confirms 
the confidence of Alessandro. A more ingenious, 
natural, and striking situation— admirable in itself, 
and more admirable in its introduction and its assis- 
tance to the progress of evolution of the plot— it 
would be difficult to find in any play. The swiftness 
and sharpness of suspicious intuition, the prompti- 
tude and impudence of intelligent hypocrisy, which 
distinguish the conduct of Shirley's ideal conspira- 
tor, are far above the level of his usual studies or 
sketches of the same or a similar kind. Nor is there, 
if I mistake not, so much of really beautiful writing, 
of pure and vigorous style, of powerful and pathetic 
simplicity, in any earlier or later work of its author. 
Of Shakespeare or of Marlowe or of Webster we can 
hardly hope to be reminded while reading Shirley; 
but we are reminded of Fletcher at his best by the 
cry of sympathy with which Amidea receives the 
assurance that the rival who has unwittingly and re- 
luctantly supplanted her is also the victim of her lov- 
er's infidelity and ingratitude : 



THE TRAITOR 

"Alas, poor maid! 
We two keep sorrow alive then. 

This indeed, if I may venture to say so, seems to me 
a touch not unworthy of Webster himself —the near- 
est of all our poets to Shakespeare in command of 
spontaneous and concentrated expression for tragic 
and pathetic emotion."^ 

Whether or not we accept this enthusiastic opinion 
of Swinburne in its entirety, our estimate of The 
Traitor may well be highly favorable. Its verse is 
acceptable and, at times, genuinely poetic ; its comic 
relief is entertaining, original, and skilfully corre- 
lated with the serious plot; its characters, although 
embodying no internal struggle, are nobly conceived 
and clearly delineated ; its tragic plot, although based 
upon external struggle, is conspicuously well con- 
structed; its individual scenes are notably effective. 
In the lustful tyrant, in the depraved villain, in the 
brother as pander, and in the use of the corpse, the 
play presents the familiar material of Webster-Tour- 
neurian tragedy of lust and horror; but does so with- 
out repulsiveness. In the emphasis upon love, in the 
contrast of the idyllic-sentimental with the tragic- 
horrible, in the clever use of surprise, and in the 
Amintor-Aspatia personages, it presents, but with far 

^ A. C. Swinburne, "James Shirley," in The Fortnightly Review, 
Liii (n.s., XLVii), 467-468. 

1:2193 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

more probability, the material of Beaumont and 
Fletcher in romantic tragedy. The elements indeed 
are old ; but the effect is new. For a major dramatist 
at the height of his career. The Traitor would have 
been a creditable production; for a minor dramatist 
scarce out of his apprenticeship. The Traitor is a 
memorable achievement. 



[220] 



CHAPTER IX 

THE FIRST DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONCLUDED 

FROM THE HUMOROUS COURTIER TO THE BALL 

OF the six plays thus far considered, three— 
The Maid's Revenge, The Grateful Ser- 
vant and The Traitor— htlong to the ro- 
mantic school of Shakspere and of Fletcher; one, 
Love Tricks, is a mixture of realism and romanti- 
cism; and the remaining two, The Wedding and The 
Witty Fair One, belong primarily to the realistic 
school of Jonson. Of the five plays that we must now 
consider, the five plays following The Traitor in 
163 1 and 1632, all, for one reason or another, must be 
classed as further essays in the realistic style. The 
Humorous Courtier, licensed as The Duke, May 17, 
1 63 1, has been called by Schelling^ a romantic com- 
edy. To most readers, however, notwithstanding its 
Italian setting, the play will seem primarily a comedy 
of humors. Love's Cruelty, licensed November 14, 
1 63 1, has likewise an Italian scene; but, in subject 
and in atmosphere, this tragedy is to be classed with 
the realistic plays of London life and manners. 

^ Schelling, Elizabethan Drama j ll, 313-314. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Changes, or Love in a Maze, licensed January lo, 
1 63 1/2; Hyde Park, licensed April 20, 1632; and 
The Ball, licensed November 16, 1632, are all indis- 
putably comedies of manners. That Shirley, after 
producing so excellent a romantic tragedy as The 
Traitor, should devote himself to the writing of real- 
istic plays, is indicative of the popularity of this type 
of drama. Realism in comedy — derived from that 
of Fletcher and of Jonson — was leading onward 
toward the realism of the Restoration. In this move- 
ment, Shirley had his part: in the five successive plays 
with which we are now to conclude our account of 
Shirley's first dramatic period, his dominant charac- 
teristic is realism and not romanticism. 

In The Humorous Courtier, licensed as The Duke, 
May 17, 163 1, Shirley produced a new and more 
poetic version of Jonson's Every Man out of his Hu- 
mour: a version in which a duchess of Mantua plays 
the physician to her entire court. "They are mad 
humours," she says, "and I must physic them."^ The 
theme is productive of a well-knit plot. Foscari, 
Duke of Parma, who has been wooing the Duchess 
of Mantua, suddenly disappears from her court; and 
the duchess announces her intent to choose a husband 
from among her lords. Encouraged by her new fa- 
vorite, Giotto, each courtier believes himself the 

2 The Humorous Courtier, v, iii; Works, IV, 600. 



THE HUMOROUS COURTIER 

chosen man, and displays in his wooing his character- 
istic weakness. Volterre, like Lodam in The Wed- 
ding, but with a better right, boasts of his fluency in 
foreign tongues ; Depazzi practises set speeches, such 
as Shirley had ridiculed in The School of Comple- 
ment, six years before; Contarini, who has the mis- 
fortune to be married, endeavors — happily without 
success— to bribe Giotto to commit adultery with 
his wife so that he may divorce her — a device pre- 
viously used by Shirley in The Grateful Servant; 
and Orseolo, the humorous courtier par excellence, 
whose humor it has been to pretend abhorrence of all 
women, confesses now the utmost licentiousness in the 
expectation that this will make him a suitor more 
acceptable. In the final scene, the duchess makes 
sport of each in turn, and then announces that her 
servant, Giotto, who has been assisting in the jest, is 
really the missing Duke of Parma in disguise and her 
accepted husband. To the modern reader, this play 
is far from pleasing: its mirth is flat; its episodes are 
repulsive. To an audience, however, that was fond 
of humors and that found nothing offensive in immor- 
ality. The Humorous Courtier may well have been 
diverting. The main conception certainly is clever. 
The old title-page— a witness, however, not above 
suspicion— asserts that the play had been "presented 
with good applause." 

1:2233 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The Other play belonging to this year is Love's 
Cruelty, a tragedy licensed November 14, 1631. 
Schelling refers to its "romantic Italian atmo- 
sphere" ; ^ yet its scene might well have been contem- 
porary London, and its tone differs but little from 
that of the more serious and poetic of Shirley's come- 
dies of manners. Indeed, as we shall note presently 
in connection with The Example, realism and ro- 
mance in Shirley are ofttimes closely blended. Typi- 
cal of this blending is the passage in which Shirley 
pays tribute to "the soul of the immortal English 
Jonson."* 

The scene of Love's Cruelty is Ferrara. Clariana, 
betrothed to Bellamente, is curious to meet his much- 
praised friend Hippolito. Concealing her identity, 
she visits him. He, called away by a summons from 
the duke, locks her in his room ; then, finding himself 
delayed, sends Bellamente to release her. Although 
astonished to find his betrothed in such a situation, 
Bellamente accepts her explanation, and marries her. 
Clariana, however, leads on Hippolito to commit 
adultery. Bellamente takes them in the act, and, after 
a sensational scene, dismisses them unpunished. 
Meanwhile, the Duke of Ferrara has been endeavor- 
ing to seduce Eubella, a charming little country girl, 

^ Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, ii, 324. 
* Love's Cruelty, li, ii; Works, li, 213. 

1:2243 



love's cruelty 

daughter of Sebastiano; and to effect his ends, the 
duke has employed Hippolito as his spokesman. 
Hippolito, however, overcome with shame for his 
crime against Bellamente and won by the virtue of 
Eubella, ceases to plead the duke's lust, and for him- 
self makes an offer of honorable marriage to Eubella. 
The duke discovers the treachery of his ambassador, 
and, himself ashamed, confirms their purposed mar- 
riage. To prevent this marriage, Clariana, pretend- 
ing that she is to reveal a plot by Bellamente against 
Hippolito, summons him to her chamber on his wed- 
ding morn. She finds him, however, true to Eubella 
and indignant at the deception. At that moment, 
they are found by Bellamente. Clariana stabs Hip- 
polito, and he wounds her with his sword. She lives 
only long enough to beg forgiveness of her husband; 
Hippolito, only until the arrival of Eubella. Bella- 
mente dies from the shock of the discoverv. The duke 
resolves to console Eubella by marrying her himself. 
As compared with The Traitor, this tragedy is a 
backward step : the theme has less of tragic grandeur; 
the verse is less notable; the comic relief is savorless; 
and the scene in which the lustful monarch renounces 
his pursuit of the maiden and confirms her betrothal 
to her lover, seems, when compared with Shirley's 
later handling of the situation in The Royal Master, 
poor indeed. Nevertheless, Love's Cruelty is not 

[225] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

mediocre. The two plots are skilfully combined; 
the main action affords occasion for several truly 
effective scenes ; and the psychology of the Clariana- 
Hippolito intrigue is far from conventional. More- 
over, the use of realism in tragedy, although not un- 
precedented, is sufficiently unusual to invite remark, 
both for its unflinching truth and for its severe moral- 
ity. Although I cannot rate this play as highly as 
have some,^ I account it a most interesting experiment 
in realistic tragedy. 

To the next year, 1632, belong four plays : Changes, 
or Love in a Maze, Hyde Park, and The Ball, all 
comedies of London life and manners, and a light 
romantic play. The Arcadia. The last of these, I 
reserve for the opening chapter on Shirley's Second 
Dramatic Period ; the others shall be considered here. 

Changes, or Love in a Maze, was licensed January 
10, 163 1/2. Its plot amply justifies its title. Gerard, 
a young gentleman of fashion, finds himself in love 
with two sisters, Chrysolina and Aurelia; and, al- 
though both return his affection, he is unable to make 
choice between the two. He begs his friend Thor- 
nay to love either of the sisters so that he himself may 
choose the other. The two friends, however, soon 
have a disagreement; and the sisters dismiss them 

^ Compare, however, Swinburne, "James Shirley," in The Fort- 
nightly Review, LITI (n.s., XLVii), 468-469. 



CHANGES, OR LOVE IN A MAZE 

both. Now Thornay, as we learn, was previously 
betrothed to a third maiden, Eugenia. His rival, 
Yongrave, in that exaggerated devotion which Shir- 
ley has already depicted in Foscari of The Grateful 
Servant and, less sincerely, in Cosmo of The Traitor, 
recalls Thornay to Eugenia, and brings about their 
marriage. Then, finding that his self-sacrifice has in- 
spired a love for him in Chrysolina, Yongrave rises 
to the occasion and marries her. This marriage re- 
lieves Gerard of the necessity of making choice be- 
tween the sisters ; and he contentedly marries Aurelia, 
the one remaining. 

As a supplement to this somewhat complicated 
plot, we have a group of characters of humor: Caper- 
wit, a poetaster; Caperwit's page disguised as Lady 
Bird; and Sir Gervase Simple, a newly knighted 
country gull — all of whom are intended to provide 
diversion of the Jonsonian variety. There is also, in 
the final scene, a masque. The play is clean enough, 
but slight in value. 

Of a much more notable quality is Hyde Park, 
licensed April 20, 1632. Its plot is loosely knit; but 
its characters and setting constitute a marvelously 
realistic picture of the fashionable life of Shirley's 
day. The structure of the play involves three stories 
which fail to unite but which sometimes intersect. 
The first is merely the return of a seven-years-lost 

1:2273 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

husband, Bonavent, to find his wife about to marry 
Lacy, and the steps by which he recovers Mistress 
Bonavent— to her entire satisfaction. The second 
story deals with a Mistress Carol, whose avowed hu- 
mor it is to jeer her suitors and put them all to scorn : 

I will not have my tongue tied up, when I've 

A mind to jeer my suitors. . . . 

For I must have my humour; I'm sick else.^ 

Finally one of her lovers, Fairfield, desires a boon: 
that Mistress Carol, after setting aside anything that 
she would not willingly grant, will permit him any- 
thing else that he may ask. She agrees; makes all 
the exceptions she can think of —to love him, to marry 
him, and so forth ; and then finds that his request is 
this: that she shall never desire his company. She 
soon finds, of course, that she cannot do without him; 
and her efforts to call him back without appearing so 
to do, form one of the most amusing elements in the 
play. The third story is another of the familiar 
themes of Shirley: the reformation of a libertine. 
Frank Trier, to test the virtue of Julietta, his be- 
trothed, introduces her to Lord Bonvile with the im- 
plication that she is a lady of pleasure. She, however, 
arouses his lordship's better self, rewards her lover's 
want of faith by annulling their betrothal, and ends 

^ Hyde Park, ii, iv; Works, II, 490. 

1:2283 



HYDE PARK 

by receiving the young lord's offer of honorable mar- 
riage. 

These plots, as I have said, are without logical con- 
nection : even Love in a Maze has more of unity. In 
other respects, however, Hyde Park marks an ad- 
vance in Shirley's workmanship. The characters in 
this play are more distinct than those of earlier plays ; 
and they are more like real people. Unlike the char- 
acters in The Witty Fair One, they inspire in us at 
least a beginning of human sympathy; we rejoice 
with them in their good fortune. Additional interest 
arises from the fact that the third and fourth acts are 
laid in Hyde Park on a racing day. Here the betting 
and the races— foot and horse— form a lively setting 
for the action. Pepys records, in 1668, two years after 
Shirley's death, that in this scene horses were brought 
upon the stage— ''the earliest record," thinks Dyce, 
''of horses being introduced.""^ We may note also 
that these Hyde Park scenes vaguely suggest the 
Bartholomew Fair of Jonson, and that the women 
have something in common with Fletcher's witty 
heroines; but we must not press this similarity too 
far. 

Dyce calls Hyde Park a "very lively and elegant 
comedy";^ but Ward is more exact in saying that 



"^ Dyce, in Works, i, xvii-xviii. 
® Ibid., xviii. 



C229: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

"only in so far as it is descriptive of . . . the realities 
of contemporary life and manners,"^ is the play of 
special interest. Its importance for us is as a forward 
step in the career of Shirley as a dramatist: a greater 
mastery in character-drawing and in the depiction of 
a realistic setting. 

Hyde Park, as we have noted, is a realistic sketch 
of the fashionable citizen society of London; The 
Ball, licensed November i6, 1632, is an equally real- 
istic picture of the life and manners of the nobility. 
In Hyde Park, the women are addressed as "Mis- 
tress," and are immensely flattered by the presence of 
even one real lord; in The Ball, the women are ad- 
dressed as "Lady," and the least among their suitors 
claims to be cousin to an earl. This difference gives 
to the latter play a certain elegance of tone that is 
lacking in the former: an elegance— according to the 
standards of the day. In the seventeenth century, 
it must be remembered, the manners of even the most 
polite society still possessed a coarseness that is to-day 
well-nigh inconceivable. The wit of Lady Lucina 
in The Ball is as remote from modern gentlehood as 
is the wit of Mistress Carol in Hyde Park. 

That Shirley's unflattering pictures in The Ball 
gave offense to at least one follower of the court, 
appears from the official entry, previously quoted, 

^ Ward, English Dramatic Literature, iii, io6. 

1:230:] 



THE BALL 

from the office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, Master 
of the Revels : 

1 8 Nov. 1632. In the play of The Ball, written by 
Sherley, and acted by the Queens players, ther were 
divers personated so naturally, both of lords and others 
of the court, that I took it ill, and would have forbidden 
the play, but that Biston promiste many things which I 
found faulte withall should be left out, and that he would 
not suffer it to be done by the poett any more, who de- 
serves to be punisht ; and the first that offends in this kind, 
of poets or players, shall be sure of publique punish- 
ment.^^ 

If, then, the printed version of The Ball is but a di- 
luted version, what v^as the original? Even in the 
revised form, society makes a sorry showing. If, in 
the original, ''ther were divers personated so natu- 
rally, both of lords and others of the court," need we 
wonder that some should take offense at Shirley's 
realism? 

Shirley's own opinion on this question, as ex- 
pressed in The Lady of Pleasure, licensed three years 
later, and the possible bearing of these satires upon 
Shirley's departure for Dublin shortly after, we have 
considered in Chapter IV, above. Our immediate 
interest in these comments by Herbert and by Shirley 

^^ Malone's Shakspere, 1821, in, 231-232. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

is rather in relation to certain criticisms which Swin- 
burne has seen fit to pass upon Shirley's character- 
drawing in The Ball. Herbert, we have seen, com- 
plained that divers lords and others of the court were 
personated too "naturally," and commanded that 
these natural touches be "left out." Shirley testifies 
that 

. . . had the poet not been bribed to a modest 

Expression of your antic gambols in't, 

Some darks had been discover'd, and the deeds too.^^ 

This passage from The Lady of Pleasure, Swinburne 
knew; but its real meaning, as indicated by the pas- 
sage in the office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, he most 
unfortunately perverts : 

The ladies and their lovers [says this critic], are so 
lamentably shadowy and shapeless that a modern reader 
has no difficulty in understanding the curious admission 
of the poet in a later and better and less reticent play 
that he had been "bribed to a modest admission ^^ of their 
antic gambols." Had he rejected the bribe, supposing it 
to have ever been offered, a less decorous and a less vacu- 
ous comedy might have been better worth our reading: 
but possibly, if not probably, the assertion or imputation 

^^ The Lady of Pleasure, I, i; Works, IV, 9. 

^2 Swinburne, be it noted, is inaccurate even in his quotation : Shir- 
ley wrote "expression," not "admission." 



THE BALL 

may be merely the part of the character to whom It is 
assigned. ^^ 

That the lines quoted by Swinburne are to be inter- 
preted rather as Shirley's protest against the censor- 
ship of Herbert, must be evident to any careful stu- 
dent. Had Swinburne been more familiar with his 
subject, and especially with the office-book of the 
Master of the Revels, a less clever and less superficial 
criticism might have been better worth our quoting.^^ 
''The main purpose of this comedy," says Ward, 
"seems to have been to give the lie to the scandalous 
reports which had arisen in connection with the 
first attempts at establishing Subscription Balls." ^^ 
Whether the aim of the dramatist were so kindly, we 
have reason to doubt ; but he certainly took advantage 
of popular interest in these gatherings. For his en- 
veloping action Shirley chose the preparations for the 
ball, including frequent dancing-lessons conducted 
by Monsieur Le Frisk; and, for the scene of his clos- 
ing act, the ball itself. His plots, such as they are, 
Shirley built up around Lady Lucina, a rich young 

^^ A. C. Swinburne, "James Shirley," in The Fortnightly Review, 
Llii (n.s., XLvii), 470-471. 

^* The general subject of the value of Swinburne's critical essay 
upon Shirley — his frequent superficiality of acquaintance with the plays 
discussed, his tendency to substitute adjectives for specific facts, and 
his seeming indifference to accuracy in matters of exact scholarship — 
I must reserve for a note in the Bibliography. 

^^ Ward, English Dramatic Literature, III, 107. 

1:2333 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

widow, and her many suitors, and around the rivalry 
of Lady Rosamond and Lady Honoria for the atten- 
tions of Lord Rainbow. Lady Lucina gives audience 
in turn to each of her suitors. Sir Ambrose Lamont, 
Sir Marmaduke Travers, Bostock, cousin to Lord 
Rainbow, and Colonel Winfield. Of each of the first 
three she makes a fool, and then sends him to procure 
a marriage license ; the fourth she jeers directly. He, 
however, by the connivance of her maid, has over- 
heard her conference with the others. He tells them 
how they are deceived, and agrees with them on ven- 
geance. When they return to her, however, Bostock, 
their spokesman, is so discourteous to Lucina that 
Winfield interferes and overwhelms him in her pres- 
ence. Winfield remains with Lucina, and renews his 
suit. She offers to marry him on one simple condi- 
tion : that he will make oath to her that he has been 
''honest," i.e., that he has lived a moral life. He 
refuses. She says that his refusal to perjure himself 
for a fortune proves his honesty in another sense, and 
she will marry him. First, however, she must intro- 
duce him to her six children, to whom the bulk of her 
estate belongs. Surprised but unshaken, Winfield 
bids her bring the children in. She confesses that she 
was but testing his devotion ; and declares that noth- 
ing now remains but to prove to him that the ball, 
which he had thought of questionable morality, is 

[234] 



THE BALL 

really innocent. Together, in the final act, they view 
the ball ; and Winfield is convinced. 

The second action, the rivalry of Rosamond and 
Honoria for the attentions of Lord Rainbow, opens 
with a quarrel between the ladies. He overhears 
them, vows that he loves both equally, and leaves it 
for them to decide whose servant he shall be. In his 
absence, they are visited by Sir Ambrose and Sir 
Marmaduke. Smarting under their repulse by Lady 
Lucina, Sir Marmaduke offers his love to Lady 
Rosamond ; Sir Ambrose, his to Honoria. Each re- 
plies by telling her suitor that the other is desperately 
in love with him. The suitors then offer themselves 
to their supposed admirers, only to be told that they 
have been deceived ; that the statement was but a test 
of their devotion. The arrival of Monsieur Le Frisk 
for the inevitable dancing-lesson saves the situation. 
The ladies then turn their attention to Lord Rain- 
bow. At the ball, they tell him that, unable to agree 
as to which most deserves his love, they have decided 
to ask him to draw lots. He declares that he will 
draw both lots. He does so, and finds each a blank. 
Outwitted, he gracefully admits defeat; and begs of 
each lady the acceptance of a jewel. 

As these outlines indicate, the effectiveness of this 
comedy consists neither in the strength of the charac- 
ters nor in the structure of the plot, but rather in the 

C235] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

amusing situations and in the opportunities for lively- 
repartee. All these Shirley handles well ; and to them, 
he adds a further element, a group of comic characters 
of humor. Monsieur Le Frisk, the French dancing- 
master; Barker, who rails at all the world; Bostock, 
who boasts of noble blood, but who, under the great- 
est provocation, is too cowardly to draw his sword; 
and Jack Freshwater, the pretended traveler, who 
lends his money on condition that he receive five for 
one at his return, and whose astonishing ignorance 
proves that he has never quitted England: all these 
add a pleasant seasoning to the salad. Were Barker 
taster to his Majesty, he perhaps would say that many 
of the ingredients of the salad were a trifle stale; that 
the mistress who makes a sport of all her lovers had 
done duty in Hyde Park the previous April ; that the 
two ladies loving the same man had appeared in 
Changes, or Love in a Maze but the January before; 
and that Jack Freshwater, who did most politicly 
disburse his sums, to have five for one at his return 
from Venice, ^^ is in this but an echo of Jonson^s Pun- 
tarvolo, who put forth some five thousand pound, 
to be paid him five for one upon the return of himself 
and his dog and his cat from the Turk's court in Con- 
stantinople.^^ And Barker might add, if he were but 

^® The Ball, II, i; Works, III, 2i. 

^'^ Jonson: Every Man out of his Humour, ii, i; iv, iv. 

n236] • 



summary: first period 

a prophet, that the scene of the lovers who attempt to 
revile their mistress and are put to shame by another, 
is but a preliminary sketch for a scene in Shirley's 
The Lady of Pleasure, 1635. If his Majesty were 
wise, however, he would reply to Barker that, in this 
comedy, Shirley has at least served up several toler- 
ably entertaining humors, a goodly number of amus- 
ing episodes, plenty of sprightly conversation, several 
dances, and a masque. His Majesty might add that, 
for the audience of November, 1632, Shirley's local 
and personal allusions were vastly entertaining. 

SUMMARY 

Before we proceed to our study of Shirley's second 
period, let us glance back for a moment over the 
eleven plays extant from the less than eight years 
between February 10, 1624/5, ^^^ November 16, 
1632. Love Tricks, or the School of Complement, 
The Maid^s Revenge, The Wedding, The Witty Fair 
One, The Grateful Servant, The Traitor, The Hu- 
morous Courtier, Love's Cruelty, Changes, or Love 
in a Maze, Hyde Park, The Ball: these eleven plays 
afiford as much variety as do those of either of Shir- 
ley's later periods, and, occasionally, as high effec- 
tiveness. For plot-construction, we find grounds for 
commendation in The Witty Fair One, in The Grate- 
ful Servant, in Love's Cruelty, and in Hyde Park; 

[2373 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

for character-delineation, in Sir Nicholas and Brains, 
in Foscari, Cleona, Leonora, and Jacomo, in Bella- 
mente, Clariana, Hippolito, and Eubella, in Fair- 
field and his Mistress Carol. Above all, both for 
character and for plot, we find artistic satisfaction in 
The Traitor and in its Lorenzo, Sciarrha, and 
Amidea. 

But during these eight years, in what fields has 
Shirley done his work? Of the five plays that we 
have just recalled, two are romantic, three are real- 
istic ; but of the eleven plays surviving from Shirley's 
first dramatic period, only three are primarily ro- 
mantic. One, the earliest, is a mingling of the types ; 
and the remaining seven are plays of London life and 
manners. In short, although Shirley's ablest drama 
of the period — The Traitor — is a romantic tragedy, 
the larger number of his plays are realistic studies in 
the style of Jonson and of Fletcher. 



[12383 



THE SECOND 
DRAMATIC PERIOD 



CHRONOLOGY OF PLAYS 

SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD 

1632-1636 

1632, November 19. The Arcadia probably acted. 
1632/3, January 21. The Bewties licensed. Subse- 
quently published as The Bird in a Cage. 

1633, J^^y 3- ^^^ Young Admiral licensed. 

1633, November 11. The Gamester licensed. 

1634, June 24. The Example licensed. 

1634, November 29. The Opportunity licensed. 
1634/5, February 6. The Coronation licensed. 

1635, October 15. The Lady of Pleasure licensed. 
1635/6, January 18. The Duke's Mistress licensed. 



1:2403 



CHAPTER X 

THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD-BEGUN 

FROM THE ARCADIA TO THE YOUNG ADMIRAL 

FROM Love Tricks, or The School of Com- 
plement, licensed February lo, 1624/5, to 
The Ball, licensed November 16, 1632, the 
plays of Shirley had been dominated by the style of 
''our acknowledged master, learned Jonson.'' Indeed, 
of the eleven extant plays belonging to this his first 
dramatic period, only three — The Maid^s Revenge, 
The Grateful Servant, and The Traitor — are roman- 
tic. The other eight, with the exception of that herm- 
aphrodite. Love Tricks, are realistic. Beginning, 
however, with The Arcadia, Shirley entered upon a 
period in which, without wholly abandoning the 
realistic style, he devoted himself primarily to ro- 
mantic plays. Of the nine original plays, ^ belonging 
to this his second dramatic period, only three — The 
Gamester, The Example, and The Lady of Pleasure 
— are comedies of London life and manners; the 

^ I am ignoring, in this estimate, The Night Walker ("a play of 
Fletcher's corrected by Shirley"), The Triumph of Peace (a masque), 
and Chabot, Admiral of France (by Chapman and Shirley). 

1:241] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Other six — The Arcadia, The Bird in a Cage, The 
Young Admiral, The Opportunity, The Coronation, 
and The Duke^s Mistress— 2iTQ romantic. From a 
period in which only one third of his work was ro- 
mantic, Shirley passed to a period in which only one 
third was not romantic. This comparison between 
his first and second periods becomes doubly signifi- 
cant when we observe that, out of a total of eleven 
extant dramas belonging to his third and last dra- 
matic period, Shirley produced but two non- romantic 
plays.^ 

From The Ball, licensed on the sixteenth of No- 
vember, 1632, to The Arcadia, acted on the nine- 
teenth of the same month, the change is almost start- 
ling. Not only had Changes, or Love in a Maze, 
Hyde Park, and The Ball been comedies of manners ; 
but to their realism they had added, in each instance, 
a group of Jonsonian characters of humor. The Ar- 
cadia, on the other hand, is Fletcherian romance in 
treatment and in material ; not romantic comedy, but 
dramatic romance of the type of Philaster and of 
Cymbeline, Nothing could be farther from the Jon- 
sonian comedy of humors. In short, we may take 
The Arcadia as a turning-point in the career of 
Shirley. 

2 The Politique Father, i.e., The Brothers of 1652, and The Con- 
stant Maid. 

1:242] 



THE ARCADIA 

The Arcadia of Shirley is a dramatic version of 
The Arcadia of Sidney. To avoid fulfilment of an 
oracle, Basilius, King of Arcadia, Gynecia, his queen, 
and his daughters, Pamela and Philoclea, withdraw 
to a lodge in the forest. Hither follow them two 
princely suitors: Pyrocles, son of the King of Mace- 
don, in love with Philoclea, disguised as an amazon, 
Zelmane; and his cousin, Musidorus, Prince of Thes- 
saly, in love with Pamela, disguised as a shepherd, 
Dorus. King Basilius falls in love with the supposed 
amazon Zelmane ; his queen, penetrating the disguise, 
becomes infatuated with the Prince of Macedon. To 
escape from the importunities of their lust, the prince 
appoints with the king and with the queen a meeting 
at a cave ; and while they seek him there, he renews 
his vows to their daughter Philoclea. His cousin 
Musidorus, meanwhile, is endeavoring to elope with 
their other daughter, Pamela. When the king and 
queen, having met each other at the cave, have made 
their peace, the king drinks a wine that the queen, in 
the belief that it would insure permanence in love, 
had brought for Pyrocles. He finds it to be poison, 
and falls dead. As guilty of his death, the officers 
of state arrest the queen. Prince Pyrocles, Philoclea, 
and the eloping Musidorus and Pamela. Euarchus, 
King of Macedon, sits as judge, and sentences to vari- 
ous deaths the queen and princes. Too late he dis- 

[243 3 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

covers the latter to be his son and nephew: the decree 
must stand. As they are passing to their execution, 
the murdered Basilius stirs upon his bier and comes 
to life. The oracle has been fulfilled. 

When Williams and Egglesfeild published The 
Arcadia m 1640, they called it "a pastorall." Whether 
Shirley himself called it a pastoral, we do not know; 
but the modern student of the drama must call it not 
primarily a pastoral but a typical "romance." The 
story of an oracle and its fulfilment ; a prince disguised 
as an amazon ; another as a shepherd ; the pure love of 
the princes for the princesses; the lustful love of the 
king for the supposed amazon, and of the queen for the 
disguised prince; the masque of the shepherds; the 
comic business of Dametas, Miso, Mopsa; the elope- 
ment of a prince and princess ; the rebellion ; the love- 
potion that appears a poison; the seeming death of 
the king; the tragic fate that threatens all the leading 
characters ; the discovery that the judge has sentenced 
his own son and nephew; his unexpected confirma- 
tion of the sentence; the amazing recovery of the 
king thought dead ; and his recognition of the fulfil- 
ment of the oracle: all these varied and surprising 
incidents are the typical material of a Fletcherian 
"romance," and as such they are presented. When 
Schelling says that The Arcadia is conspicuous 
among Shirley's dramas only "for its close following 

1:244] 



THE BIRD IN A CAGE 

of his chosen material/'^ and that ^4t is memorable 
for no other reason,"^ he is considering the play as 
an isolated phenomenon, not as a step in Shirley's 
development as a dramatist. For Shirley, The Ar- 
cadia marks his complete acceptance of romanticism. 
The second in this group of three romantic plays 
is The Bird in a Cage, licensed as The Bewties Janu- 
ary 21, 1632/3. To previous critics this play has 
seemed of interest chiefly for its political allusions 
and especially for its satirical attack on William 
Prynne, then in confinement. To us, the play is more 
of interest as gay romanticism run mad : another con- 
tribution to the school of Fletcher. The Duke of 
Mantua, wishing to marry his daughter Eugenia to 
the heir of Florence, banishes her noble lover Phi- 
lenzo and shuts up Eugenia in a closely guarded 
tower. The lover, returning in disguise, boasts in the 
duke's court that, if he be granted money enough, he 
can accomplish any task assigned him. As a jest, 
and to test the fidelity of his guards, the duke grants 
him unlimited treasure for a month, commands him 
to gain access to the princess, and decrees death as 
the penalty for his failure. Bribes prove of no avail ; 
and the lover, despairing, resolves to immortalize 
himself by releasing all poor debtors from the prison. 
One of these, in gratitude, invents a device to help the 

^ Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 11, 315. 

1:2453 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

lover. He presents to the duke a cage full of rare 
birds; and the duke, as he anticipated, sends it to his 
daughter. When she opens the cage, her lover steps 
from its central pillar. Next day the lover, still dis- 
guised, reports to the duke that he has performed the 
task assigned him; that he has gained access to the 
princess. Summoned as a witness, the princess con- 
firms his assertion, and begs, moreover, that she may 
have him as her husband. The duke is furious that 
she should love a stranger, a man of no birth. When 
the lover, however, reveals himself as the banished 
Philenzo, the duke, fearing that Florence will break 
off the marriage treaty, orders him to instant execu- 
tion. As he is led out, there comes a letter from the 
Duke of Florence. Florence has heard of the love of 
the princess for Philenzo ; he has no further interest in 
the alliance; he recommends that Mantua marry the 
princess to Philenzo. The Duke of Mantua resolves 
to act on the advice: Eugenia may have her chosen 
lover. His leniency, however, comes too late: Phi- 
lenzo has taken poison on the way to execution; he 
is brought in— dead. When the dead Philenzo, how- 
ever, hears that he should have had the princess as 
his bride, he comes to life, and they live happily ever 
after. In short, The Bird in a Cage is Fletcherian 
dramatic romance turned into extravaganza. 

Except to indicate Shirley's change of interest 

1:2463 



THE YOUNG ADMIRAL 

from realistic to romantic drama, The Arcadia and 
The Bird in a Cage are of but secondary importance. 
Even in the romantic field, Shirley had done better 
work before, in The Grateful Servant of 1629 and in 
The Traitor oi 1631. In The Young Admiral, how- 
ever, licensed July 3, 1633, Shirley once more pro- 
duced a play of primary importance, a tragicomedy 
that ranks among the most successful of his romantic 
dramas. 

The Young Admiral, as has been shown by Stiefel, ^ 
borrows the complication and climax of its major 
plot from that of Lope de Vega's Don Lope de 
Cardona. The resolution of this plot, however, with 
the minor actions and the general treatment of 
the material, is Shirley's own. Vittori, admiral of 
the fleet of Naples, on returning from victory against 
the fleet of Sicily, finds that the son of the King of 
Naples, Prince Cesario — whose misbehavior while a 
suitor at the court of Sicily has brought on the war- 
has taken advantage of Vittori's absence to attempt 
the honor of his wife Cassandra, has imprisoned his 
father on a false charge of treason, and has shut the 
gates of Naples against his returning army. The 
young admiral, appealing to the aged king, secures 
the release of his father, Alphonso, upon condition 

* Stiefel in Archiv fur das Studium der neueren Sprachen und 
Literaturerij cxix, 309-350. 

1:2473 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

that Vittori, Alphonso, and Cassandra go into banish- 
ment. Before they can escape, Alphonso is again 
imprisoned by the prince; and Vittori and Cassandra, 
driven back by storm upon the coast of Naples, are 
made captive by the King of Sicily, who has just 
arrived before Naples with a second fleet. To Vit- 
tori, Sicily gives the choice of commanding the army 
against his native city or of suffering the death of his 
Cassandra. Love and loyalty struggle for mastery; 
but rather than let Cassandra die, Vittori resolves to 
sacrifice his honor. When the Prince of Naples hears 
of this, however, he warns Vittori that Vittori's first 
attack upon the city shall be the signal for Alphonso's 
execution. While the young admiral is facing this 
awful alternative — the death of wife or father — he 
enters the tent of Rosinda, the Sicilian princess, and 
there discovers his wife Cassandra with the Prince 
of Naples. The prince, made prisoner, tauntingly 
shows Vittori the letter of Cassandra that had lured 
him thither. Vittori is convinced. Heart-broken, 
he begs the king that he fulfil his threat to decapitate 
Cassandra; then, seeking the princess, Vittori begs 
that she secure from her father an order for his own 
execution. Rosinda, however, solicits his service in a 
dangerous enterprise. Consenting, he, at her request, 
escorts the princess from the camp of Sicily to the 
palace of the King of Naples. There she avows her 

1:248] 



THE YOUNG ADMIRAL 

identity, declares her love for the captured prince 
Cesario, and offers herself as hostage for his safety. 
Vittori now realizes that Cassandra's letter was but 
an artifice to lure Cesario to the princess. Joyously 
he throws off his disguise, and seeks and obtains the 
pardon of the King of Naples. In the Sicilian camp, 
meanwhile, the king discovers the disappearance of 
his daughter. Wild with alarm, he commands the 
beheading of Cassandra and the prince, but is 
checked with a warning that Naples holds the prin- 
cess as a hostage. A conference between the kings 
results in a renewal of the treaty for the marriage of 
the prince and princess. Vittori, meanwhile, loses 
no time in reclaiming his beloved Cassandra. 

As the foregoing summary makes evident, the plot 
of The Young Admiral consists not of a struggle be- 
tween contending passions within the hero's mind, 
but merely of a struggle between the hero and various 
external forces. Such is Shirley's management, how- 
ever, that, scene by scene, this mere external struggle 
finds expression in a struggle that is internal: the 
struggle between love of wife and love of country; 
the struggle between love of wife and love of father ; 
and, in the mind of the father, the struggle between 
love of king and love of son. These several internal 
conflicts, as a comparison will show, are original with 
Shirley, not borrowed from his Spanish source, Don 

1:2493 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Lope de Cardona. They are, moreover, additions of 
great value. Shirley, like his predecessors in dra- 
matic romance, sought, above all else, for the emo- 
tional effectiveness of individual scenes. For such 
effectiveness, nothing could contribute more than this 
element of internal struggle. 

In his characterization, also, Shirley has done well. 
He has made Cesario a princely and efficient villain, 
whom we admire even in his villainy; he has made 
Rosinda every inch a princess; Cassandra, a devoted 
wife and loyal friend ; Vittori, a much tried and tol- 
erably heroic hero. To realize fully the success of 
Shirley's characterization, we have only to compare 
these four well-rounded figures with the wooden 
puppets that play the corresponding parts in Don 
Lope de Cardona. 

As for the minor actions, neither Shirley's comic 
characters nor his comic scenes lack originality and 
effectiveness. Didimo, the mischievous page ; Pazzo- 
rello, the foolish steward who desires to be made, by 
witchcraft, bullet-proof; and Fabio, the courtier 
who speaks much but never to the point, and whose 
unfortunate bargain with Captain Mauritio lends 
savor to the final scene : all these are matter foreign 
to Shirley's Spanish source, and matter genuinely 
delightful. 

In versification, also, Shirley's The Young Ad- 

1:2503 



THE YOUNG ADMIRAL 

miral is not without success. In the lesser plays of 
Shirley, the verse is often commonplace; but in his 
major plays, especially in passages of deep feeling, 
it is not unworthy. Such a passage is the latter part of 
Act III, scene i, of The Young Admiral, from which 
I venture to quote a single speech : 

ViTTORi \^to Cassandra']. Do not say so! 

Princes will court thee then, and at thy feet 
Humble their crowns, and purchase smiles with provinces. 
When I am dead, the world shall doat on thee. 
And pay thy beauty tribute. I am thy 
Affliction ; and when thou art discharg'd 
From loving me, thy eyes shall be at peace. 
A sun more glorious shall draw up thy tears, 
Which, gracing heaven in some new form, shall make 
The constellations blush, and envy *em. 
Or, if thy love 

Of me be so great that, when I am sacrificed. 
Thou wilt think of me, let this comfort thee : 
I die my country's martyr, and ascend 
Rich in my scarlet robe of blood; my name 
Shall stain no chronicle, and my tomb be blest 
With such a garland time shall never wither; 
Thou, with a troop of wives as chaste as thee, 
Shalt visit my cold sepulchre, and glory 
To say. This doth enclose Vittorl's dust 
That died true to his honour and his country. 
Methinks I am taking of my leave already, 

[250 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

And, kissing the wet sorrows from thy cheek, 
Bid thee rejoice Vittorl Is a conqueror. 
And death his way to triumph.^ 

The high seriousness and poetic beauty of these 
lines suggest more adequately than could any criti- 
cism the character of this tragicomedy, The Young 
Admiral, and, with some qualification, the character 
of all the romantic plays of Shirley: a wistful con- 
sciousness of the pathos and, at times, of the tragedy 
of life; a yearning for conditions more happy and 
more noble than the world he knew. In the extrava- 
ganza The Bird in a Cage, in the Fletcherian ro- 
mance The Arcadia, and in the tragicomedy The 
Young Admiral, Shirley presents various species of 
this romantic genus: species that range in tone al- 
most from tragedy to farce. Yet in each, whether 
seemingly frivolous or serious, he gives us something 
more than the cynical satire of his comedies of Lon- 
don life and manners : he gives us, in the place of wit, 
a heart. 

^ The Young Admirah m, i; Works, iil, 134-135. 



1:2523 



CHAPTER XI 

THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONTINUED 

THE GAMESTER AND THE EXAMPLE 

NOT without occasional ^'backsliding" did 
Shirley abandon the realistic school. In 
the very year of the licensing of The 
Young Admiral, and again in the following spring, 
Shirley was guilty of a fall from grace. In the first 
of these instances, however, his tempter was no less a 
person than the king. 

In two respects, moreover, these comedies of man- 
ners — The Gamester and The Example — differ 
from Shirley's previous work in the realistic school. 
In the first place, the incidents, although not always 
more decent, are at least more moral. In the Pe- 
nelope-Fowler scenes of The Witty Fair One, Shir- 
ley had used repulsive situations merely for comic 
effect; in The Gamester, and even more emphatically 
in The Example, he places the emphasis not on the 
evil but on the reformation. Shirley has evidently 
come to feel the tragic side of the immorality he pic- 
tures, and no longer accounts it a subject for heartless 

1:253;] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

jesting or for indifference. In the second place, both 
in The Gamester and in The Example, amid the real- 
ism and amid the characters of humor, Shirley has 
introduced an element of romance. In The Game- 
ster, the Beaumont-Delamore action is romantic com- 
edy—well-nigh romantic tragedy— though the scene 
be London; in The Example, the extravagant 
"honor" of Sir Walter Peregrine and of Lord Fitz- 
avarice in the major plot gives a romantic tone to the 
entire play, and makes it — if such a thing be possible 

— a romantic comedy of manners. 

The earlier of these two comedies. The Gamester, 
was licensed November ii, 1633. From a dramatic 

— as distinct from an ethical — point of view, its plot 
is well worthy of its royal source. Wilding, neglect- 
ful of his loving wife, makes dishonorable suit to 
Penelope, her ward, and even commands his wife to 
solicit Penelope in his behalf. The wife, for pur- 
poses of her own, prevails on Penelope to promise 
him a meeting. When, however, the appointed hour 
arrives, Wilding, unwilling to leave the gaming-table, 
sends his friend Hazard to keep the appointment 
with Penelope. In the morning, smarting from his 
loss at cards. Wilding hears from Hazard a glowing 
account of his meeting with the ward. Doubly smart- 
ing. Wilding presently discovers from his virtuous 
wife that it was she and not Penelope that kept the 

1:2543 



THE GAMESTER 

assignation. Wilding's first impulse is to keep both 
his wife and his friend Hazard in ignorance of the 
truth. To this end, he offers to double Penelope's 
dowry if Hazard will marry her. As the two are in 
love already, they hasten to the priest. Then, at the 
last, the repentant Wilding finds that his fears are 
groundless: that Hazard had found both women 
waiting to shame the erring husband, and that with 
them Hazard had arranged the plot that brought 
Wilding to his senses. If the reader can adopt the 
Gallic attitude which makes adultery a fit subject for 
a jest and accounts a wronged husband the height of 
the ridiculous, then this main plot of The Gamester 
is a capital theme capitally presented. As Schelling 
says: ^'The popularity of The Gamester ... is 
based not solely on its appeal to the pruriency of its 
auditors, but likewise on the admirable knitting of 
its plot and the success with which the dramatic 
suspense is sustained to the very end." ^ 

The two other actions in the play, however, are 
probably more acceptable to the Anglo-Saxon mind. 

^ Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, ii, 293. I am glad, however, that 
Professor Schelling adds: "To pick and choose this play as typical 
of the comedy of its age, and of Shirley in particular, is almost as 
unfair as it would be to select the discourse of Mistress Overdone 
and her tapster Pompey as characteristic of Shakespeare's dialogue at 
large, or hold up the device by which Helena wins her husband, Ber- 
tram — a device, by the way, not altogether dissimilar to that em- 
ploj^ed by Mistress Wilding under similar conditions — as typical of 
the master dramatist's prevalent ethics of conduct." — Ibid., 293-294. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The first of these, allied to the main plot both by the 
presence of Wilding and by the active participation 
of Hazard, is especially interesting for its realistic 
pictures of gaming-houses, gamblers, and men about 
town. Old Barnacle, a wealthy citizen, desires his 
heir and nephew to gain a reputation among the gal- 
lants. To this end, he bribes Hazard, a known man 
of valor, to allow Young Barnacle to strike him in a 
gambling-house. So successful is the plot that Young 
Barnacle gains a mighty reputation as a bully, and 
believes himself as valiant as he seems. As a result, 
he quarrels upon all occasions, until Old Barnacle, 
fearful lest his hopeful nephew be killed, offers to 
Hazard another hundred pounds to humble the 
young gallant. Hazard willingly administers the 
required thrashing, and then reveals the jest. 

The connection between this second plot and that 
first given seems closer in the play than in this ab- 
stract; but the connection between these and the third 
plot is slight even in the play. This third plot deals 
with the romantic loves of Beaumont and Violante, 
Delamore and Leonora. On the charge of slaying 
Delamore in a duel, Beaumont is imprisoned under 
sentence of death. Sir Richard Hurry, father of 
Leonora, commands her to marry Beaumont, though 
the latter has slain her betrothed and is himself be- 
trothed to her dearest friend. When Sir Richard 

[2563 



THE GAMESTER 

promises to obtain Beaumont's pardon on condition 
that he marry Leonora, Beaumont refuses to abandon 
Violante. Urged by Violante to accept Sir Richard's 
offer and so save his life, Beaumont declares himself 
doubly obliged to be true to Violante. At a final 
hearing, Sir Richard again offers Leonora and her 
wealth to Beaumont. He refuses. Sir Richard there- 
upon sentences Beaumont— to marry Violante. Dela- 
more, he assures them, is alive and out of danger, 
and has his consent to marry Leonora. This story, 
beginning with a supposedly fatal duel and ending 
happily in a court of justice, is somewhat suggestive 
of the Beauford-Marwood action in The Wedding. 
Its effect, however, depends less on startling situa- 
tions and more on romantic emotionality. 

Although the three plots are not vitally related, each 
by itself is so carefully constructed that, in surprise 
and in suspense, it is genuinely effective. Of the char- 
acterization less is to be said ; yet it is tolerably suc- 
cessful. Hazard and Wilding make a well-con- 
trasted pair: the latter unable to resist the temptation 
of the moment, whether for gaming or for women; 
the former sane and self-controlled even in his vices, 
able to dissuade his companions from committing 
assault upon the officers, able to leave the gaming- 
table while yet a winner, able to discern virtue in 
womanhood and to respect it. Young Barnacle, too, 

1:257] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

makes a distinct and interesting figure, not only in 
his swaggering but also in his humor of speech — so 
exquisitely caricatured by Wilding's page. The 
women of the play are, to the modern reader, less 
attractive. True to the manners of their time, they 
lack the modern sense of the indelicate : they have a 
looseness of phrase, and an undue tolerance for the 
viciousness of their acquaintances. In themselves, 
however, they seem not immoral; and Shirley's in- 
creased ability to characterize has made them real 
enough somewhat to enlist our sympathy. In short, 
although The Gamester is by no means great, its 
popularity is not ill deserved. In view of Herbert's 
record that the play was "made by Sherley out of a 
plot of the king's," we need not wonder at the further 
note : "The king sayd it was the best play he had seen 
for seven years." ^ 

The Example, licensed June 24, 1634, is to modern 
taste the most acceptable of Shirley's comedies of 
London life and manners. Its two minor actions are 
conspicuously in the style of Jonson. The first of 
these concerns the humors of Vainman and Pumice- 
stone, suitors to Jacinta, who requires the former 
never to speak while in her presence, the latter always 
to perform the opposite of what she bids.^ The sec- 
ond concerns the humors of Sir Solitary Plot, a char- 

2 Malone's Shakspere, 1821, ill, 236. 

3 The Example, IV, ii; Works, III, 337-339- 

1:258] 



THE EXAMPLE 

acter compounded of Jonson's Morose in Epiccene, 
and Jonson's Sir Politic Would-be in Volpone. Like 
the latter,^ he suspects a plot in every circumstance; 
like the former, he shuts himself up in his rooms, and 
is cured of his humor only by a practical joke. His 
servants, Oldrat and Dormant, add their humors to 
his own; and when Oldrat, playing constable, at- 
tempts to ^^reprehend" the traitors, he becomes a very 
Dogberry.^ 

The real interest, however, centers in the action 
involving Sir Walter Peregrine, Lady Peregrine, 
and Lord Fitzavarice. Sir Walter, because of heavy 
debts, especially to Lord Fitzavarice, has taken ser- 
vice in the wars. In his absence, Lord Fitzavarice 
endeavors to corrupt Lady Peregrine, and offers even 
to cancel all her husband's debts as a reward for her 
infidelity. Finally, in admiration of her constancy, 
he presents her with the mortgage and with "a 
wealthy carkanet." At that moment. Sir Walter, ven- 
turing arrest, comes home, hears from his wife from 
whom the mortgage and the jewels come, and will 
listen to no explanation. Passionate in his imagined 
wrong, he sends a challenge to Fitzavarice. The 
latter asks his follower. Confident Rapture, to be his 
second. The follower, to avoid fighting, instigates 

* Volpone^ II, i. 

^ The Example, V, i; Works, III, 354. 

1:259:] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Fitzavarice's scrivener to arrest Peregrine for debt. 
Naturally, Sir Walter believes that the arrest was at 
the suit of Lord Fitzavarice. His lordship, however, 
is indignant at the trick. He pays Sir Walter's debts, 
secures his freedom, and goes in person to see him at 
the prison. Overwhelmed by this generosity. Sir 
Walter both withdraws his suspicions that Fitz- 
avarice occasioned the arrest and accepts his assur- 
ance of his noble purposes toward Lady Peregrine. 
Lord Fitzavarice, however, lest it be said that he has 
bought Sir Walter's consent to Lady Peregrine's dis- 
honor, or even his consent to drop the duel, insists 
that they fight. For form's sake, then, they fight the 
duel. Both draw blood. The second intervenes. 
And the play ends— in the betrothal of Lord Fitz- 
avarice to a sister of Lady Peregrine, Jacinta. 

Extravagant as all this sounds in abstract, it makes 
a thoroughly effective play, full of strong scenes and 
appealing characters. Indeed, The Example has 
won the approbation of even Swinburne, who not 
only singles it out as ''the best of Shirley's comedies," 
but adds: "To have written such a tragedy as The 
Traitor, such a comedy as The Example, should be 
sufficient to secure for their author a doubly distin- 
guished place among the poets of his country." ^ "A 

® A. C. Swinburne, "James Shirley," in The Fortnightly Review, 
Liii (n.s., XLVii), 472. 

1:2603 



THE EXAMPLE 

judgment unblinded by perversity, prepossession, or 
malevolence," continues Swinburne, ''must allow that 
the noble tone of this poem is at least as typical of its 
author's tone of mind as the baser tone of a preceding 
play. . . . The noble, high-spirited, simple-hearted, 
and single-minded heroine would suffice to sweeten 
and redeem an otherwise condemnable or question- 
able piece of work; her husband is a figure not un- 
worthy to be set beside her; and the passionate young 
tempter, whose chivalrous nature is so gracefully dis- 
played in the headstrong, punctilious, perverse, and 
generous course of conduct which follows on the fact 
of his conversion, would be as thoroughly successful 
and complete a study as either, if it were not for the 
luckless touch of incongruous melodrama which 
throws the lady of his love into a swoon at the sight 
of his preposterous poniard and the sound of his 
theatrical threats. But all that can be done to redeem 
this conventional and sensational error is admirably 
well done in the sequel of this noble and high-toned 
play: a model of simple construction and harmonious 
evolution, in which the broad comedy of the under- 
plot is rather a relief than an encumbrance to the 
progress of the more serious action." 

Whether one agree with Swinburne's opinion in 
its entirety, and especially with his assertion that The 
Example is ''the best of Shirley's comedies," will be 

1:260 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

in part a matter of personal taste. Others would pre- 
fer, perhaps, to select for that honor one of the ro- 
mantic comedies. It is significant, however, that 
much of the excellence of this realistic comedy results 
from qualities that are found more frequently in 
romantic drama. Indeed, although the scene of this 
play is laid in London, and although its minor ac- 
tions concern Jonsonian characters of humor, its 
major plot is marked by such high seriousness and its 
major persons are dominated by such lofty motives 
that one is tempted to classify The Example not as 
comedy of manners but as romantic comedy. 

Even in comedy of manners, Shirley here shows 
the influence of the romantic drama. 



n262 3 



CHAPTER XII 

THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONTINUED 

THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE CORONATION 

IN the two winters remaining before Shirley went 
to Dublin, he produced four new plays: The 
Opportunity and The Coronation in the season 
of 1634-5; and The Lady of Pleasure Z-ndiT he Duke's 
Mistress in the season of 1635-6/ The first two con- 
stitute the subject of the present chapter; the second 
two, of that which follows. Of these four plays, one. 
The Lady of Pleasure, is a comedy of manners ; but 
the others are contributions to the romantic school: 
a romantic comedy, a dramatic romance, and a ro- 
mantic tragicomedy respectively. 

The Opportunity, licensed November 29, 1634, is 
a capital little comedy, fairly bubbling over with 
clever situations and charming character. Like its 
source — El Castigo del Penseque by Tirso de Mo- 
lina^ — Shirley's play presents the maddening per- 

^ I omit from this critical discussion Chabot, Admiral of France, 
licensed April 29, 1635, because of the doubt whether Shirley was 
more than its reviser. See Chapter III, above. 

2 See A. L. Stiefel, "Die Nachahmung spanischer Komodien in Eng- 
land unter den ersten Stuarts," in Romanische Forschungen, V, 193- 
220. 

1:2633 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

plexities of a young adventurer torn between his love 
for a beauteous gentlewoman who believes herself his 
sister, and his coincident opportunity to win the hand 
of an equally beautiful and equally infatuated 
duchess. Unlike its Spanish original, however, Shir- 
ley's play does not end in the marriage of the hero 
to the maiden who had imagined herself to be his 
sister, but, with greater poetic justice, in his loss of 
both the duchess and her gentlewoman. 

In Shirley's version, Aurelio Andreozzi, a young 
gentleman of Milan, comes with his friend Pisauro 
to Urbino. Here he discovers that he is mistaken for 
one Borgia: that he is the supposed son of an aged 
nobleman, Mercutio; the supposed brother of the 
charming Cornelia; and the supposed murderer of a 
brother of Ursini, favorite of the duchess. In short, 
he finds himself received as one who rashly has re- 
turned from banishment, and who is liable to pay, 
as the price of his temerity, his head. 

From this danger he is freed by the intercession 
of Ursini. Ursini loves Cornelia; and therefore, to 
establish himself in the good graces of Cornelia and 
her family, he forgives, as the mischance of a duel, 
the killing of his brother, and from the duchess se- 
cures the hero's pardon. This pardon, however, 
throws Aurelio-Borgia into further difficulties. 
He is urged to consent to Ursini's marriage with 



THE OPPORTUNITY 

Cornelia. As Borgia, he cannot well refuse; as 
Aurelio, he is himself in love with fair Cornelia. 
Cornelia, he discovers, is as madly infatuated with 
him; yet she is horrified, he sees, at a passion which 
she deems unnatural. The duchess, moreover, begins 
to shower him with favor. Her infatuation for the 
supposed Borgia becomes the scandal of the court. 
He sees before him the possibility of a ducal coro- 
net; nor is he indifferent to the duchess's personal 
charms. He finds that his standing with the duchess 
has aroused the sexual jealousy of Cornelia and the 
political jealousy of Ursini. To cap the climax, the 
ambassador of the Duke of Ferrara— really no other 
than the duke himself disguised— breaks off his nego- 
tiations for a marriage between duke and duchess, 
and prepares to leave the court. 

That night, divided between his growing affection 
for Cornelia and his desire to take advantage of the 
favor of the duchess, Aurelio-Borgia stands beneath 
the palace window. Unknown to him, behind him 
stands the duke. From the window, Cornelia, pre- 
tending to be the duchess, warns him not to presume 
upon her favor, for she plans to marry with Ferrara. 
The duke, overhearing, joyfully departs. At this 
moment the duchess takes Cornelia's place. Surmis- 
ing what has passed, she pretends to be Cornelia, 
and begs him to consent to her marriage with Ursini. 

1:2653 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Desperate lest he lose both the duchess and Cornelia, 
Aurelio declares that he is not her brother Borgia, 
and in his own person avows for her his love. The 
duchess, fearing now lest he leave the country in 
despair, gives him some slight encouragement, and 
leaves him still wondering whether, after all, he 
would rather marry Cornelia or the duchess. 

Next morning the duchess renders Aurelio more 
perplexed than ever. She does her best to lead him 
to avow his love, and promises to see him married 
to any mistress whom he may desire, ^'be she the 
proudest, greatest in our duchy, without all limita- 
tions.'' As Aurelio is on the point of taking the 
duchess at her word, Cornelia enters to announce the 
Duke of Ferrara. She attempts to court Aurelio, but 
the jealous duchess summons her away. Aurelio 
glories ; the duchess loves him ; Cornelia loves him — 
but he must give her no encouragement; her Grace 
is much the better woman! Then, within a moment, 
all his hopes are dashed. The duchess reenters with 
the duke and train; and Ursini tells Aurelio that 
Ferrara has claimed the duchess by a promise made 
''last night," and that it is the duchess's pleasure that 
the marriage of Ursini to Cornelia wait on hers. 

Not yet, however, is the story done. The duchess 
denies all knowledge of the "promise." Cornelia 
confesses the impersonation. The duke withdraws, 



THE OPPORTUNITY 

indignant. Again the duchess stirs Aurelio to renew 
his suit. He sees the opportunity, but hesitates. At 
length he asks her — if she loves him! She lectures 
him gloriously, and then — pardons him! And then 
she has him write for her a letter — a letter to an un- 
named suitor — a letter avowing her love and promis- 
ing a midnight meeting in her garden and their mar- 
riage in the morning! This she signs, and commands 
Aurelio to deliver it ''to him that loves her best." 
This letter the faint-hearted Aurelio delivers — to the 
duke! 

The duke declares this joy beyond his hope. Au- 
relio, discovering his error, tries to gain access to the 
duchess's garden. He arrives too late: the duke is in 
possession. He then resolves to win Cornelia. She 
listens to him, and, in his presence, accepts Ursini's 
suit. The duke and duchess publish their betrothal. 
Aurelio leaves Urbino. 

Whether as intrigue or romance. The Opportunity 
is a delightful comedy. Without an instant's dull- 
ness, the action rushes on. It has a zest, a joyous 
freshness that gives life even to time-worn situations 
—yes, even to mistaken identity! And the characters 
— the infatuated duchess, the charming Cornelia, the 
testy Mercutio, the bewildered Aurelio— they, too, 
are a joy. Even Shirley's rascally servant and mis- 
chievous page in the underplot (of which I have 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

said nothing) contribute to the general delectability. 
Concerning the content of The Opportunity, we have 
but one regret: that Shirley failed to copy from the 
Spanish the scene in which Aurelio is permitted to 
help the duchess don her glove.^ 

As to the relation of the play of Shirley to its 
source, I cannot do better than to quote from the con- 
cluding paragraphs of the article by Stief el :* 

"As we review the whole, we find that Shirley has 
made abundant use of his model. To it he is indebted 
not only for the idea of the play, but also for the prin- 
cipal points of his plot, the arrangement of the ma- 
terials, the best and most effective scenes. But the 
imitation is not slavish. Not many literally trans- 
lated passages are found. Even where he has faith- 
fully copied a scene, he has preserved his own indi- 
viduality in the expression as far as possible. . . . 
The scenes invented by Shirley are numerous; and, 
although they are inferior in humorous effect to those 
of the original, nevertheless they are still strong 
enough for the part. At the head we place the Pim- 
ponio scenes (the comic underplot), which some- 
times develop an excellent humor. But Shirley does 
not really attain to the geniality of the Spaniard. 

^ The availability of The Opportunity for modern presentation is 
suggested by its revival, some eight years ago, at the Universitj^ of 
Illinois. See The NatioUj June 14, 1906. 

* Stief el, Romanische Forschungen, V, 218-219. 

1:268: 



THE OPPORTUNITY 

This is best indicated when one compares the imi- 
tated scenes with the original. How clumsy every- 
thing there appears beside the spirited, charming 
Spaniard! 

''In respect to character, Shirley goes his own way; 
and herein he surely surpasses his original. The men 
especially receive a pronounced individuality. Mas- 
terly is the character of Mercutio, which is the poet's 
own creation. 'The waspish vanity and perverse 
exultation of the old man,' according to Dyce's opin- 
ion (ill, 411, note), 'are, in truth, very skilfully and 
humorousl}'' portrayed.' The jealous Ursini, the 
cynical Pisauro, the imperious duke, the clown Pim- 
ponio, are figures that stand forth more sharply than 
any in Castigo. In a more remarkable manner, the 
leading characters, especially the women, lose under 
Shirley's hands. There is wanting in the latter, that 
grace and roguishness, that intense personal charm 
which make us, in Tirso, indulgent toward their 
weakness and folly. Don Rodrigo, also, has suffered 
in his English costume. In Tirso he appears as a 
noble, knightly figure. It is not his exterior alone 
that prepossesses the countess in his favor. Brave 
in battle, he has defended her against the hostile 
attack of Casimiro. The love of the condesa is also 
an overflow of her gratitude and, at the same time, 
founded upon the inner worth of the tested man. On 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

the other hand, what does Aurelio do in Shirley to 
deserve the passion of the duchess? Nothing; abso- 
lutely nothing. She sees him, and is in love with 
him; she sees him, and wishes to possess him. 

"The English play, through the greater variety of 
characters, through the introduction of subordinate 
characters, and through the underplot, is richer and 
more exciting in treatment than is the Spanish; but, 
in exchange for this, the chief action— the relation 
between princess and adventurer— has lost as well in 
breadth as in depth. The idea of the piece remains 
the same. Both poets represent in a delightful man- 
ner how close-lying happiness is forfeited by too 
timorous reflection ; both learn 'occasio aegre offertur, 
facile amittitur.' . . . Taking everything together, 
we must estimate Shirley's comedy as an excellent 
imitation enriched with many original features. Still 
we believe that, in the whole work, it has not 
equalled, much less, then, surpassed its model.'' 

Slighter than The Opportunity, yet, in its own 
way, charming, is The Coronation, a Fletcherian 
dramatic romance, licensed February 6, 1634/5. The 
story of the play is a blending of two actions : first, the 
attempt of Cassander, the Lord Protector of Epire, 
to control the crown; second, the love-affair of Ar- 
cadius and Polidora. The interest comes from the 
complications that result from a succession of revela- 

1:2703 



THE CORONATION 

tions concerning the purpose of the young queen, 
Sophia, and the identity of her rivals for the throne. 
Cassander, the Lord Protector, plans to marry his 
son, Lisimachus, to the youthful queen. To this, Sophia 
seemingly consents; but asks that, as a preliminary to 
the marriage, she be fully invested with her royal 
power. Cassander, confident that she loves his son, 
agrees to the coronation. But no sooner is she in 
control than she avows her purpose to wed not Li- 
simachus but a young noble of the court, Arcadius. 
This avowal confounds not only the purposes of Cas- 
sander but also the intentions of Arcadius; for the 
latter has accounted himself deeply in love with Poli- 
dora, with whom he has exchanged vows within the 
hour. Arcadius, however, is too weak to resist the 
temptation offered by the queen; forgetful of Poli- 
dora, he consents without a protest. Even her letter 
disturbs him but a moment. When, however, he is 
about to be married to Sophia, Macarius, his sup- 
posed uncle,^ intervenes. Arcadius, he says, is Prince 
Demetrius, Sophia's younger brother, supposed dead, 
whom the late king had intrusted in infancy to Ma- 
carius, lest Cassander, the lord protector, cut him off. 
To the truth of this, the late king's signature and the 
evidence of the bishop both bear witness. Sophia 

^ Arcadius-Demetrius is not, as Dyce says in the Dramatis Per- 
sona, III, 460, the "supposed son" of Macarius, but rather the sup- 
posed nephew. Cf. pp. 464, 465, 476, 478, 500, 501, etc. 

1:2713 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

has lost both her expected husband and her crown; 
Arcadius-Demetrius is the rightful king. With that, 
the new king remembers his first love, Polidora, and 
goes in state to lead her to his throne. She will have 
none of him— as king. Sophia, likewise, recalls her 
former love, Lisimachus. He has found, he says, a 
new mistress. Sophia's suspicions turn to Polidora. 
Meanwhile, Cassander, the baffled lord protector, 
seeks for an engine against Demetrius. He finds it in 
the imprisoned Seleucus, long Demetrius's rival. He 
declares that Seleucus is Prince Leonatus, an elder 
brother of Sophia and of the new-crowned king, 
hidden, like the latter, while a babe. Seleucus be- 
lieves the tale a lie, but resolves to profit by it. By 
an energetic coup, he gains the crown — and dismisses 
his instigator. When Cassander in revenge declares 
him an impostor, Eubulus, the supposed father of 
Seleucus, reveals that he is indeed Leonatus and the 
rightful king: Cassander's fabrication was uncon- 
scious truth. So the play ends : Arcadius-Demetrius, 
repentant and no longer king, regains his Polidora; 
Princess Sophia discovers that the "new mistress" of 
Lisimachus is— herself ; Seleucus-Leonatus reigns. 

As compared with other work of Shirley, the char- 
acterization in this play is second-rate : no character 
is especially appealing; no character is especially 
well drawn. The individuals are, indeed, clearly 

1:2723 



THE CORONATION 

differentiated; but the characterization is sketchy. 
Cassander, throughout, is merely the ambitious, un- 
scrupulous would-be king-maker; Lisimachus is 
merely his modest son, "too good to be the son of such 
a father";^ Seleucus-Leonatus, the elder prince, is 
ever proud and violent and scornful; Arcadius- 
Demetrius, his younger brother, is no coward, in- 
deed, but is fickle of love and weak of will ; Polidora 
is loving, but sentimentally romantic; Princess 
Sophia is "wise above her years," ^ but, to the reader, 
unattractive. In not one of these characters— not 
even in Arcadius when Sophia tempts him from his 
former love '^— is there a hint of internal struggle. 
No one of the characters is developed sufficiently to 
grip our interest. In short, Shirley's character- 
drawing in The Coronation is the typical character- 
ization of Fletcherian dramatic romance— sufficient 
only for the moment, effective solely for the scene in 
which it falls. 

Like other Fletcherian romance, however. The 
Coronation does not lack effective situations. The 
scene in which Sophia grants Seleucus the privilege 
of combat with Arcadius;^ that in which Arcadius 

® The Coronation, i, i; Works, III, 462. 
"^ Ibid., II, ii; Works, iii, 482. 

^ Ibid., II, iii; Works, in, 488-489; and Ibid., iii, ii; Works, III, 
495-501. 

^ The Coronation, I, i. 

1:2733 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

and Polidora exchange their vows;^^ that in which 
the combat is interrupted, and the queen chooses as hus- 
band not Lisimachus but Arcadius;^^ that in which 
Seleucus scoffs at Arcadius's praises of the queen, and 
Arcadius is revealed as Prince Demetrius ; ^^ the 
scene in which Polidora, with her masque of For- 
tune, Love, and Honor, rejects the wooing of the 
king;^^ and, finally, that scene which proves Seleu- 
cus-Leonatus to be the rightful heir:^* each of these 
scenes is, for the moment, strikingly effective. Con- 
sidered as a whole, however. The Coronation is 
memorable only as being one further play by Shirley 
in the style of Fletcher.^^ 

Whether or not we count the romantic tragedy 
Chabot, Admiral of France, among the plays of Shir- 
ley, we see that, thus far, the dramas of this his second 
period are overwhelmingly romantic. The Arcadia 
we found to be a dramatic romance of the type of 
Philaster and of Cymbeline; The Bird in a Cage, a 
dramatic romance turned into an extravaganza. The 

^0 The Coronation, ii, i. ^^ md.^ m, ii. i* Ibid., V, iil. 

11 Ibid., II, iii. ^^ Ibid., IV, iii. 

1^ Not only in the original quarto, but also in the folio of Beaumont 
and Fletcher, 1679, and in subsequent editions of their works, this 
play, The Coronation, is ascribed, as the reader will recall, to John 
Fletcher. The title-page of the quarto (I quote from the copy in the 
Hoe Collection) reads: The Coronation, a comedy. . . . Written 
by John Fletcher, Gent. London, . . . 164.0. In view of its super- 
ficial resemblance to the work of Fletcher, this attribution of the 
play is not surprising. The proof that the play is Shirley's, I have 
presented in a former chapter (see pp. 82-83). 



THE CORONATION 

Young Admiral we found to be a romantic tragi- 
comedy, effective in plot, effective in internal strug- 
gle scene by scene, effective in its characterization of 
Cesario, Rosinda, Cassandra, and Vittori, effective 
in its departures from its Spanish source. The Coro- 
nation we found to be a Fletcherian dramatic ro- 
mance, sketchy in its characterization — as Fletch- 
erian dramatic romance ought to be — but striking in 
situation and surprising in the successive revelations 
of its plot. The Opportunity we found to be a spar- 
kling romantic comedy, delightful both for its situ- 
ations and for its characters. Against these five 
romantic plays— at least two of which are among the 
most satisfying of the plays of Shirley — we have 
found in this period but two that are comedies of 
manners; and these two — The Gamester and The 
Example— diXt^ with one exception, the last important 
contributions of Shirley to the realistic school. In 
the chapter that follows, we shall consider in detail 
two plays, one a romantic tragicomedy, the other a 
satiric comedy of manners. Each, in its own way, 
typifies a large body of the work of Shirley. Of the 
two, perhaps the comedy of manners is the greater. 
But whichever of these plays we may prefer, we must 
remember that the period which they conclude was, 
for Shirley, a period of conversion to the romantic 
school. 

[:2753 



CHAPTER XIII 

THE SECOND DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONCLUDED 

THE LADY OF PLEASURE AND THE DUKE'S MISTRESS 

FOR the winter of 1635-36, the last winter 
before Shirley went to Dublin, the plays of 
our dramatist were two in number: The 
Lady of Pleasure, licensed October 15, 1635; and 
The Duke's Mistress, licensed January 18, 1635/6. 
These plays, as typical of Shirley's work at the close 
of his second dramatic period, we shall consider 
somewhat at length. 

The Lady of Pleasure, the last, with but two excep- 
tions,^ of Shirley's comedies of manners, is a bitter 
but clever satire upon the wilder lords and ladies of 
the court; their extravagance, their gaming, their 
drunkenness, and their licentiousness. Brilliant as 

^ These two comedies of manners are The Brothers of 1652 and 
The Constant Maid of 1640. The former is believed, by many critics, 
to be identical with the play of the same name licensed in 1626; the 
latter, although usually assigned to the Dublin period, gives internal 
evidence of being among the earliest of Shirley's plays. I shall discuss 
them both as productions of Shirley's third dramatic period; for the 
evidence for placing them earlier appears to me inadequate. Never- 
theless, for a study of Shirley's comedy of manners at its best, we 
must turn rather to The Example and The Lady of Pleasure, in his 
second period. 



THE LADY OF PLEASURE 

Restoration comedy, it is equally unreadable; and 
yet, although it is among the most offensive of the 
plays of Shirley, it is, at the same time, among the 
most severely moral. 

The plot of The Lady of Pleasure centers about 
a young woman of fashion, Aretina, wife of Sir 
Thomas Bornwell. Him she has persuaded to sell 
their country estates and to move to town; and there 
she wastes her husband's substance in fast society. A 
direct ancestress of Lady Teazle,^ Aretina quarrels 
with her husband for opposing her extravagance; 
scorns the well-meant warning of a kinsman against 
the wiles of a procuress ; recalls her nephew from the 
university to train him in fashionable dissipation; 
and herself takes the initiative in a particularly un- 
worthy intrigue. Her husband, in an effort to bring 
her to her senses, endeavors to frighten her by his 
own prodigality and to arouse her jealousy by danc- 
ing attendance upon Celestina, a merry widow of six- 
teen. These excesses, however, Aretina welcomes as 
warrant for her own misdoings. Nor does she stop 
short of actual adultery. When, however, her hus- 
band, returning from the gaming-table, announces 
gaily that their fortune will last them but a month, 
his levity arouses her attention. And when her worth- 

2 Compare The Lady of Pleasure, i, i, with The School for Scandal, 
II, i. 

1:2773 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

less gallant, Master Kickshaw, who knows not the 
identity of the lady of the darkened chamber, boasts 
to Aretina of the gold his mistress gave him and con- 
fesses that he believes his mistress a she-devil,^ then 
at last she realizes the horror of her situation and 
prays her husband for forgiveness. 

The other figures in the play contribute variously 
to the sorry picture. Celestina, the widow of sweet 
sixteen, is not, indeed, immoral ; yet in wit and word 
she is unbridled beyond the possibilities of expurga- 
tion. Lord A, the nameless libertine mourning his 
dead mistress, descends from his noble pedestal to 
attempt the honor of Celestina. Madam Decoy, the 
procuress, plies her trade. Master Frederick, the 
somber university student, plays the drunkard with 
repulsive variations. Sir William Scentlove, Master 
Kickshaw, and Master Littleworth, like the "worm" 
of Cleopatra, do their kind. In fact, the only char- 
acter that emerges from the play with honor is Hair- 
cut, the barber. He, at least, receives our hearty 
sympathy when, in revenge for a trick that Scentlove 
plays on him, he forces Sir William to remove his 
periwig and stand bare for half an hour: 

Or this, or fight with me. 

It shall be no exception that I wait 

Upon my lord. I am a gentleman ; 

2 Cf. The Grateful Servant, iv, v; Works , il, 76 et seq. 

[278] 



THE LADY OF PLEASURE 

You may be less, and be a knight. The office 
I do my lord is honest, sir. How many 
Such you have been guilty of, heaven knows.* 

And yet, despite repulsive subject-matter, wg can- 
not but admit that, as a play, The Lady of Pleasure 
is excellently done. The several threads of the story 
are closely interw^oven; the scenes are lively and 
amusing; the moral teaching is unmistakable. The 
language, too, is varied and appropriate. Celestina's 
stinging characterization of Kickshaw^ and Little- 
w^orth, her parody of Lord A's poetic flights, and her 
eloquent defense of v^omanly honor in repulsing his 
solicitations: all, in their several v^ays, are notable. 
Especially conspicuous in contrast w^ith the method 
in Chabot, is the skilful manner in which, in The 
Lady of Pleasure, Shirley presents his character-de- 
scriptions. He does not, indeed, confine himself to 
the modern method of incidental presentation. He 
uses passage after passage of direct characterization. 
But in The Lady of Pleasure, these descriptions arise 
as if of necessity from the circumstances. Aretina 
quarrels w^ith her husband, and he draws her picture. 
Celestina, administering a tongue-lashing to the im- 
pertinent gallants, tells them what they are. The 
steward, forgetful of a caller's name, describes him 

* The Lady of Pleasure, V, i; Works, IV, 97. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

to identify him to his mistress. As a result, the play- 
is conspicuous for satiric characterization. 

In short, as Neilson has remarked, The Lady of 
Pleasure is ''a good example of Shirley's comedy of 
manners"; and since, as he continues, ^'this type of 
Shirley's comedies is important in measuring the ap- 
proach made toward the Restoration comedy before 
the Puritan Revolution,"^ we, as students of Shirley, 
should be grateful to Neilson for including The 
Lady of Pleasure in his recent collection. The Chief 
Elizabethan Dramatists. 

The Duke^s Mistress, licensed January i8, 1635/6, 
is Shirley's last play before he went to Ireland— his 
last play among those belonging to his Second Dra- 
matic Period. It is not, as Dyce declared, a tragedy,^ 
but a tragicomedy in which the underplot of Horatio 
and Fiametta is humor run mad, and the serious por- 
tion a somber romantic tale of court intrigue ending 
in no deaths save those of the major and the minor 
villain. Because the play stands thus at the end of 
Shirley's second period; because it is a romantic 
tragicomedy; because in this period, and even more 
in the period to follow, romantic plays were Shirley's 
favorite form; and because this particular play is, to 
an unusual degree, typical of Shirley's matter and 

^ Neilson, The Chief Elizabethan Dramatists, p. 860. 
^ Works, I, XXXV ; and IV, 190. 



THE duke's mistress 

manner in this particular field; for all these reasons, 
The Duke^s Mistress especially merits our attention. 

The action of the play may be resolved into three 
elements : ( i ) the attempt of Dionisio Farnese, Duke 
of Parma, to cast off his loyal wife, Euphemia, and 
to obtain as his mistress Ardelia, the betrothed of Ben- 
tivolio; (2) the attempt of the duke's kinsman and 
heir, Leontio,*^ to obtain the love of the duchess and to 
supplant the duke; and (3) as comic underplot, the 
wooing of Fiametta by Horatio, whose humor it is to 
value a mistress in proportion to her exceeding ugli- 
ness. 

The material is typical of Shirley's romantic tragi- 
comedies. The play opens with revels in honor of 
Ardelia, "the duke's mistress." As these are at their 
height, the duchess enters, and begs the duke, since 
she has lost his love, to sentence her to death. Ar- 
delia, who has not heard the plea, innocently begs that 
it be granted: "Do not, sir, deny your duchess her 
desires, so just and reasonable!" Euphemia, horri- 
fied, vows to be revenged on duke and mistress. In 
reply, the duke commands the close confinement of 
the duchess ; and, that he may have grounds for fur- 
ther action, he appoints as jailer his kinsman and 
next heir, Leontio, whose passion for the duchess he 
suspects. 

^ Also spelled "Leonato"; see Gifford's note in Works j iv, 271. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

To this distracted court has returned Bentivolio, 
formerly the betrothed lover of Ardelia. As he is 
reproaching her for her faithlessness, the duke ap- 
pears. Ardelia hides her lover, and then, from the 
duke, forces a confession (which neither Bentivolio 
nor the court would have believed from any other), 
that, notwithstanding all the duke's solicitations, 
Ardelia has not yielded him her honor. Convinced 
of her innocence, Bentivolio studies to protect 
her. He has need; for already he has revealed his 
secret to Valerio. The latter, having first betrayed 
Bentivolio and Ardelia to the duke, demands that 
Ardelia buy his silence with her shame. Fearful lest 
her refusal cost Bentivolio's life, Ardelia, to gain 
time, promises Valerio a meeting. 

Meanwhile, Leontio, kinsman of the duke, has so- 
licited without success the virtuous duchess. Realiz- 
ing that he can achieve nothing while her husband 
lives, but that, were he duke, he might accomplish 
all, Leontio bribes Pallante, a disaffected captain, to 
assassinate Farnese. Valerio overhears his secret, 
convinces Leontio of his loyalty, and, for Leontio, 
prevails upon Bentivolio, also, to slay the duke. 
Leontio, as heir, will pardon him. 

That night Fiametta, Ardelia's ugly waiting- 
woman, insists that Ardelia give the duke's lust 
immediate satisfaction. While she is protesting, 



THE duke's mistress 

Valerio arrives to claim her. He gets rid of Fia- 
metta by means of a pretended summons from Ho- 
ratio, and, finding Ardelia obdurate, attempts to 
force her. With that, she covers him with a pistol. 
Some one knocks. Supposing it the duke, Valerio 
hides behind the hangings. Bentivolio enters. Be- 
lieving that the rat in the arras is the duke, he runs 
Valerio through; and then, still ignorant of the 
truth, attempts, with Ardelia, to leave the palace. 

Leontio, kinsman of Farnese, meanwhile waits for 
the explanation of the shouts of "Treason !" Pallante 
comes, and reports that he has slain the duke. In the 
midst of his account— which lays strange stress upon 
the duke's repentance— ofEcers enter with Bentivolio 
and Ardelia prisoners. Bentivolio, like Pallante, 
asserts that he has slain the duke. Leontio, though 
puzzled at the second confession, sees in it an oppor- 
tunity to shift the blame from his retainer, and forth- 
with orders Bentivolio and Ardelia both to prison. 
Believing that the duke is dead, Leontio hastens to 
force the duchess to his will. Entering her room, he 
finds with her the duke — spared by Pallante — repent- 
ant and reconciled. For the moment, however, Leon- 
tio does not recognize Farnese, but mistakes the duke 
for one of his own servants. He tells Euphemia that 
the duke's death leaves her free to love him. The 
duchess will have none of him, and cries out "Trea- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

son!" The disguised duke, being unarmed, repeats 
the cry. Leontio threatens to kill him, but is con- 
vinced that the second cry was but an echo. That he 
may force the duchess, Leontio hands the duke his 
sword to keep the door. The duke reveals himself, 
and attacks Leontio. The latter uses the duchess's 
body as a shield; but the duke's shouts bring Pallante 
and the guard. Leontio falls wounded; admits his 
treasons; dies. Word comes that Valerio has been 
found slain in Ardelia's chamber. All is explained; 
and the duke and duchess, reunited, joyfully sanction 
the marriage of Bentivolio to the duke's innocent mis- 
tress, fair Ardelia. 

That The Duke's Mistress is, in its subject-matter, 
typical of the tragicomedies of Shirley, must be evi- 
dent from the foregoing summary: it is a tale of lust 
and intrigue at an Italian court, a tale in which inno- 
cence is ultimately triumphant and in which villainy 
suffers death or reformation. In the management of 
this material, likewise. The Duke's Mistress is repre- 
sentative of Shirley's tragicomedies. In the first 
place, the exposition is typical. The play opens with 
a single rapid scene that— interesting in itself— gives 
us an instant grasp of the situation. Valerio jests 
about the duke's desertion of the duchess and passion 
for Ardelia, and twits Leontio about his despondency 
and the duke's suspicions ; Leontio addresses the neg- 



THE duke's mistress 

lected duchess, is overheard by Strozzi, retains Pal- 
lante, and pays his respects to the now doubly suspi- 
cious duke; Ardelia enters and is welcomed by the 
duke: all this in a single scene, and the play is on. 

Besides being typical for its skilful exposition. The 
Duke's Mistress is typical for its well-knit plot. The 
comic subplot, to be sure, is united to the serious ac- 
tion only by the fact that its dramatis personce play 
also minor positions in the major plot: its Faust, 
Horatio, is the comrade of Bentivolio; its Margaret, 
Fiametta, is the companion of Ardelia; its Mephis- 
topheles, Valerio, is the sub-villain of the major plot. 
The two plots, however, that compose the major 
action— that of the duke against Ardelia and that of 
Leontio against the duke — these are inseparably 
interwoven. The figure of Valerio, moreover, is 
omnipresent, an aid to unity; for in all three actions 
he plays a vital part. He it is that introduces Hora- 
tio to his first mistress, the ugly Fiametta, and that 
then, as further complication, brings in her rival, the 
uglier Scolopendra. He it is that discovers Leontio's 
purpose to supplant the duke, pretends to join him, 
and prevails on Bentivolio to be their agent in the 
assassination of Farnese. He it is that betrays Benti- 
volio and Ardelia to the duke, that attempts himself 
to force Ardelia's honor, and that, at last, mistaken 
for the duke, falls by the avenging hand of Benti- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

volio. Thus, by his mischievous participation in each 
action, Valerio links the three plots into one. 

In choice of scenes, likewise, as in exposition and 
in unity of plot. The Duke's Mistress is typical of 
Shirley's tragicomedy. Both in the scenes that it in- 
cludes and in the scenes that it omits, the play is typi- 
cal. The effective scenes, the scenes essential to the 
plot, are present: the clash between the duke's mis- 
tress and the duchess in the presence of Bentivolio, 
Leontio, and the duke; the meeting of Ardelia and 
Bentivolio, followed by the confession of the duke in 
Bentivolio's hearing; the meeting between Leontio 
and the duchess; the two meetings between Valerio 
and Ardelia, and the slaying of Valerio by Benti- 
volio ; and the final scene betv^^een Leontio, the duch- 
ess, and the duke. Yes, the scenes a faire are present 
— with one typical exception: where is the scene in 
which Pallante achieves the reformation of the duke? 
To secure a surprise — the duke's unexpected escape 
and reformation — Shirley has sacrificed an unusual 
opportunity for a scene of character-development. 

In choice of subject-matter, in skill of exposition, 
in effectiveness of scenes, The Duke's Mistress is both 
typical and successful ; but the result is only the ro- 
mantic tragicomedy of Shirley, not the psychological 
tragedy of Shakspere. 

1:286:] 



summary: second period 

SUMMARY 

The two plays considered in this chapter — The Lady 
of Pleasure and The Duke's Mistress, typical respec- 
tively of the realistic and the romantic plays of Shir- 
ley—summarize concretely the work of our dramatist 
from the autumn of 1632 to the spring of 1636. Of 
the nine extant plays, other than Chabot,^ belonging 
to this period, three we have found to be comedies of 
London life and manners. Of these three plays. The 
Gamester is to be remembered for its highly compli- 
cated and effective plot and for its realistic pictures 
of London gaming-houses; The Example, for its 
striking scenes and its appealing characters ; and The 
Lady of Pleasure, for its brilliant pictures of vicious- 
ness and extravagance in high life and for its skilful 
plotting and character-delineation. Each of these 
plays contains Jonsonian ^'characters of humor" — 
Oldrat, Dormant, Young Barnacle, the minor figures 
of The Lady of Pleasure, and, best of all. Sir Solitary 
Plot; each play is likewise Jonsonian both in its firm 
organization and in its unsparing and at times repul- 
sive realism. Together, however, these three come- 
dies of London life and manners rise above the ear- 
lier work of Shirley in the realistic school, both in 
their serious attitude toward life and in their severe 
morality. Each play offers, either in its major or in 

* Chabot, which I ignore in this summary because of the probability 
that it is not wholly Shirley's, is romantic tragedy. 

1:2873 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

its minor plot, some person or some group of persons 
striving for more wholesome things; and in The 
Example, this striving produces characters genuinely 
noble. 

The six remaining plays of Shirley's second period 
are, as we have noted, essays in the romantic style, 
plays that belong primarily to the school of Shak- 
spere and of Fletcher. The Bird in a Gage is mere 
romantic nonsense flavored with satire upon contem- 
porary politics; The Arcadia and The Coronation 
are typical Fletcherian dramatic romance, slight of 
characterization, improbable of plot, but full of un- 
expected turns, and pretty sentiment, and poetic 
charm; The Opportunity, a better play than either, 
gives sufficient attention to character to be accounted 
a romantic comedy rather than a Fletcherian dra- 
matic romance; The Young Admiral and The 
Duke's Mistress are romantic tragicomedies. Each 
of these six, according to its kind, displays an excellent 
command of plot. The romantic comedy and the tv\^o 
romantic tragicomedies display, in addition, excel- 
lent character-delineation. 

Although the .best of these romantic plays— TA^ 
Young Admiral and The Opportunity — are perhaps 
not greater than the best of the realistic plays— T/?^ 
Example and The Lady of Pleasure — we cannot help 
feeling that Shirley's interest and Shirley's ultimate 
success lie not in realism but in romanticism. 

1:288] 



THE THIRD 
DRAMATIC PERIOD 



CHRONOLOGY OF PLAYS 
THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD 

1636-1642 

1638, April 23. The Royal Master licensed. 

1639, October 30. The Gentleman of Venice li- 
censed. 

1639 (?). The Politician probably acted. 

1640, April 28. St. Patrick for Ireland entered in the 
Stationers' Register. 

1640, April 28. The Constant Maid entered in the 
Stationers' Register. 

1640, June I. Rosania licensed. Subsequently pub- 
lished as The Doubtful Heir. 

1640, November 10. The Imposture licensed. 

1641, May 26. The Politique Father licensed. Sub- 
sequently published as The Brothers. 

1 641, November 25. The Cardinal licensed. 

1642, April 26. . The Sisters licensed. 

1642. The Court Secret. ''Never acted, but pre- 
pared for the scene at Black-Friers." 



[290] 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD-BEGUN 

THE ROYAL MASTER 

SHIRLEY'S third (and last) dramatic period 
extends from his departure for Ireland in 
1636 to his return to London sometime in the 
spring or summer of 1640, and thence to the closing 
of the theaters in 1642. For much of this period, the 
precise chronology of Shirley's plays is far from cer- 
tain : many of the plays were first produced in Dub- 
lin ; and of the date of these presentations we have no 
record. My discussion, therefore, must follow the 
order in which the plays were licensed for presenta- 
tion in London, or, when this record is wanting, the 
order in which the plays were entered in the Station- 
ers' Register for publication. To this arrangement, 
however, I shall make one exception. The Politi- 
cian, never licensed, was not published until 1655; 
yet, since it was ^'Presented at Salisbury Court By 
Her Majesties Servants,"^ it must antedate Shirley's 
return from Dublin in 1640, the time when Shirley 

^ From the title-page of a copy of the 1655 edition, in the possession 
of the present writer. 

1:290 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

severed his connection with the Queen's men. Since 
The Gentleman of Venice was, like The Politician^ 
"Presented at the Private house in Salisbury Court 
by her Majesties Servants,"^ and was likewise pub- 
lished in 1655, I shall assume, for purposes of ar- 
rangement, that the two plays belong to approxi- 
mately the same time. The Gentleman of Venice 
was licensed for London presentation October 30, 
1639. I shall place The Politician immediately after 
it. All other plays of the period I shall consider in 
the order of the earliest known date concerning them. 
Taken as a whole, this third dramatic period is 
notable in two respects. In the first place, Shirley's 
work in the realistic style of Jonson and of Fletcher 
has all but given way to work in the romantic style 
of Fletcher and of Shakspere. Two plays. The Con- 
stant Maid and The Politique Father (i.e.. The 
Brothers of 1652), are comedies of manners. The 
other nine of the eleven plays extant are all romantic. 
In the second place, the plays of this final period 
include several of the best of Shirley's works. The 
Royal Master and The Cardinal are ranked by many 
critics as Shirley's ablest work in romantic comedy 
and romantic tragedy respectively; andThe Doubtful 
Heir, The Imposture, The Court Secret, and even 

2 From the title-page of a copy of the 1655 edition in the possession 
of the present writer. 



THE ROYAL MASTER 

that gay little farce The Sisters, are all deserving of 
cordial commendation. In short, the plays of Shir- 
ley's closing period confirm his mastery of romantic 
drama. 

Earliest and most delightful of these eleven plays 
is The Royal Master: '^Acted in the new Theatre in 
Dublin: and Before the Right Honorable the Lord 
Deputie of Ireland, in the Castle,"^ "on New-yeares 
day at night," ^ entered in the Stationers' Register, 
March 13, 1637/8 ; licensed April 23, 1638 ; and pub- 
lished the same year. It is a play notable for well- 
knit plot, effective scenes, pleasing characterization, 
clever dialogue, and poetic atmosphere. 

The principal actions in the plot are two: first, the 
attempt of the king's favorite, Montalto, to strengthen 
his ascendancy by thwarting the purposed marriage 
of the king's sister to the Duke of Florence; and, 
second, Domitilla's misplaced infatuation for the 
king, and her recovery. To make his influence in the 
state secure, Montalto has desired for himself the 
hand of Theodosia, sister to the King of Naples. He 
finds, however, that the king intends the princess for 
the Duke of Florence, the brother of his deceased 
queen. To thwart this treaty, Montalto contrives a 
hunting-party that shall bring the king and duke to 

^ Title-page, 1638. From the copy belonging to the late Robert 
Hoe, Esq. 
* Epilogue, in Worksj iv, 187, and note. 

1:2933 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

dine at the country house of Simphorosa, a noble 
widow, in whose charming daughter, Domitilla, the 
favorite hopes to interest the duke. At the same time, 
he covertly informs the duke that Princess Theodosia 
is secretly contracted to another lover, even himself, 
and therefore must not wed the duke. Fascinated 
with Domitilla, the duke is not sorry for an excuse 
to cast off Theodosia ; but yet he hesitates. At this, 
Montalto hints to the duke's secretary, Riviero, that 
the princess has already yielded him her honor. At 
the same time, Montalto reveals to Theodosia the 
interest of the duke in Simphorosa's daughter. All 
the contending forces thus aroused, Shirley, in the 
fourth act, brings together: the king reproaches the 
duke for his desertion; the duke brings his counter- 
charge against the princess; the king and princess 
clash; and then, as innocent little Domitilla falls in 
the way of the princess, she, for the moment, pays 
dearly for her imagined rivalry. Then Montalto, 
discovering that his charge against the princess is 
about to react upon himself, endeavors to keep all 
from access to the king until he can remove the only 
witness to his charge, Riviero. Through Montalto's 
sentries, Riviero, and then the duke himself, try with- 
out avail to gain conference with the king. Young 
Octavio, however, they allow to pass ; for Montalto's 
creatures know him only as the favorite's favorite. 

[2943 



THE ROYAL MASTER 

Then the king calls Montalto into counsel ; he fears 
that the duke's charge against the princess's chastity 
is true; and he desires to find some nobleman who 
will marry the princess to conceal her guilt. Mont- 
alto offers himself as sacrifice. The king embraces 
him, and seeks to find for him some great reward. 
He finds it: he will teach Montalto to distinguish 
friends from foes; he will pretend to frown upon 
Montalto; will order his confinement; he will en- 
courage all who will to proffer charges; will note 
who plead Montalto's cause; then he will summon 
Montalto back to honor, and Montalto's enemies 
shall stand revealed. Instantly, despite Montalto's 
protest, the king begins to put his plan into execu- 
tion : he orders Montalto and Montalto's faction into 
confinement; he receives the accusations of Mont- 
alto's enemies. Among these accusations, Montalto's 
plot against the duke, and his slandering of the prin- 
cess, are now supplemented by proof, in Montalto's 
own handwriting, that he was responsible for the 
poisoning of Octavio's father several years before. 
And yet, despite all this evidence, Octavio and the 
duke's secretary Riviero, who are directing the at- 
tack, find to their amazement that the king supports 
Montalto. They see Montalto welcomed back in 
honor, and furnished with a list of all his enemies. 
Then, in an instant, all is changed: the king over- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

whelms Montalto with the charges and the evidence 
against him; the duke and the princess, who have 
made their peace, enter to add their adverse influ- 
ence; the king orders Montalto to his doom. 

This plot dealing with the intrigues of Montalto 
and their reaction upon their author, Shirley man- 
ages with great skill. The exposition and motiva- 
tion ; the climax, with its clash of duke and king, king 
and princess, princess and Domitilla; the suspense 
in the king's antechamber as man after man endeavors 
to achieve admission; the excitement of the falling 
action ; the final suspense as the king heaps new hon- 
ors on Montalto; the catastrophe, sudden and over- 
whelming: all these are capitally conceived. And 
then, after a scene devoted to the happy resolution 
of the Domitilla-action, Shirley returns for a moment 
to Montalto; reveals the fact that Montalto did not 
cause the poisoning of Octavio's father after all, that 
Montalto's letter had been intercepted, and that his 
intended victim lived among them in disguise— Ri- 
viero, the duke's secretary. And thus Shirley con- 
cludes the story' of Montalto by commuting his sen- 
tence from death to banishment. 

The second story— how Domitilla loved the king 
—equals the Montalto-action for dramaturgic skill, 
and excels it in poetic charm. At the opening we 
find Domitilla, a joyous unspoiled maiden of fifteen, 

1:2963 



THE ROYAL MASTER 

living in the shelter of her mother's country house. 
The hunting dinner makes her known to all the 
court; and especially she attracts the notice of the 
king, the duke, and young Octavio. The king re- 
solves to bestow her hand and fortune upon his favor- 
ite, Montalto. To this end, he finds opportunity to 
ask the maiden whether she will accept a husband 
of his choosing. She misunderstands him, thinks he 
means himself, and promises. The king, unconscious 
of the mischief wrought, summons Domitilla and 
her mother to his court, and directs Simphorosa to 
prepare her daughter for Montalto. Domitilla, 
meanwhile, in her own imagination begins to play 
the queen: when her mother attempts to mention 
Lord Montalto, she will not hear of him; when Oc- 
tavio offers her his heart, she can think of him only 
as a subject; when the Duke of Florence presents a 
carcanet of diamonds, she fails to thank him and flies 
abruptly off to meet the king. Then follows the dis- 
covery of her mistake. The king does not love her ; 
yet she can only love the king. The duke offers his 
love, and she rejects it. With her rejection, however, 
she couples something more: the reconcilement of 
the duke and princess. Her mother reveals the situ- 
ation to the king, and begs his aid to break the infatu- 
ation. Having made certain that Domitilla is vir- 
tuous beyond temptation, he undertakes her cure. He 

1:297] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

asks the little maid to be his mistress. The shock of 
the proposal cures her love. She resists the king. 
Octavio dares to intervene, her champion. 

King. How's this? 

Octavio. Sir, in a noble cause ; if you to whom 
In the first place truth flies, as to an altar, 
Wave her religious defence, I dare die for her. 

King. You ! so brave? to prison with him ! — 
We will correct your sauciness. 

Oct. You will grace 

My first act, sir, and get me fame, by suffering 
For so much sweetness. 

DoMiTiLLA. Let not your displeasure, 

Great sir, fall upon him ; revenge what you 
Call disobedience, here. 

King. You owe much to 

His confidence ; nor is there any punishment 
Beyond your love and liking of his boldness ; 
You two should make a marriage with your follies. 

Oct. Let Domitilla make Octavio 
So blest. 

DoM. My lord, you now deserve I should 
Be yours, whom, with the hazard of the king's 
Anger and your own life, you have defended. 
There is a spring of honour here ; and to it 
In the presence of the king, his court, and heaven, 
I dare now give my heart ; nor is't without 
My duty to a promise. 

[298: 



THE ROYAL MASTER 

Oct. Now you make 

Octavio happy. 

King. 'Tis to my desires ; 

And I dare wish you joys. Forgive this practice ; 
— Nay, pretty Domitilla, I did this 
But to divert more happily thy thoughts 
Of me, who have not yet paid the full tribute 
To my Cesaria's dust. Again let me 
Congratulate thy choice in young Octavio, 
Whose birth and forward virtue will deserve thee.^ 

In that part of the action that relates to Domitilla, 
Shirley enters upon a field that, as we have noticed, 
he too rarely touches— the field of character-develop- 
ment. Usually, as in most dramatic romances of the 
Fletcherian school, the characters in Shirley's plays 
are static: v^hatever be their nature in the opening 
act, that nature they retain v^ithout spiritual grow^th 
to the end of the play; or else, if change there be, it 
comes abruptly and vv^ithout adequate preparation— 
a revolution, not an evolution. In The Royal Master, 
however, Shirley has given us in Domitilla a delight- 
ful picture of character-development. Through all 
the psychologic steps we follow her: from the happy 
but self-centered innocence of girlhood, through 
awakened love and sorrow, to an unselfish dedication 
to king, to princess, and to noble lover. We delight 

^ The Royal Master, v, i; Works, iv, 185-186. 

1:2993 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

in her not only for her strength or sweetness at any 
given moment but also for the growth she makes 
throughout the play. 

Utterly different from the character of Domitilla, 
yet almost equally delightful in its way, is the char- 
acter of her '^secretary," as she calls him, Bombo. 
Unable either to read or write, he pores upon books 
he cannot understand— like many another chaplain, 
he declares. He has a pretty wit; but fears that his 
renown may spread abroad. When the king and his 
hunting-party stop to dine, he is sure that their visit 
was to search him out. The summons of the king 
confirms his fears. In attendance upon Domitilla at 
the court, he hides from all ; and when Montalto falls, 
Bombo, to escape succession to the favorite's place, 
steals away home. In his humor thus to fly all 
worldly honors, Bombo makes an excellent foil for 
his ambitious little mistress, Domitilla. 

Besides displaying Shirley's management of plot 
and character to best advantage. The Royal Master 
affords an excellent example of Shirley's sprightly 
dialogue. In illustration, I shall quote one passage 
—none the less willingly because it has been pre- 
viously commended by Gifford.^ It is from the first 

® "It is impossible not to notice the feeling, gay good humour, and 
poetic excellence of this little dialogue." — Gifford, in Works, iv, 119, 
note. 

1:3003 



THE ROYAL MASTER 

meeting of Domitilla and Octavio, at the moment 
before the arrival of the hunting-party at her 
mother's country house : 

Enter OCTAVIO. 

Oct. I kiss your fair hand, madam Domitilla. 
The king and duke and all the jolly hunters, 
With appetites as fierce as their own hounds, 
Will be here presently. 

DoM. I hope they will not 

Devour us, my good lord. 

Oct. But I would sit and feast, and feed mine eyes 
With Domitilla's beauty. 

DoM. So, my lord ! 

Here was a gentleman— you could not choose 
But meet him — spake your dialect. I have 
Forgot his name, but he was some great lord. 

Oct. Great lord! Fie ! What an ignorance you live in. 
Not to be perfect in a great lord's name ! 
There are few ladies live with us but know 
The very pages. Leave this darkness, madam. 
And shine in your own sphere, where every star 
Hath his due adoration. 

DoM. Where? 

Oct. The court. 

Confine such beauty to a country-house ! 
Live among hinds, and thick-sklnn'd fellows, that 
Make faces, and will hop a furlong back 
To find the t'other leg they threw away. 
To shew their reverence ! with things that squat, 

1:3013 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

When they should make a curtesy ! To court, madam. 

And live not thus, for shame ! the second part 

Of a fond anchorite. We can distinguish 

Of beauty there, and wonder without spectacles ; 

Write volumes of your praise, and tell the world 

How envious diamonds, 'cause they could not 

Reach to the lustre of your eyes, dissolv'd 

To angry tears ! the roses droop, and gathering 

Their leaves together, seem to chide their blushes. 

That they must yield your cheek the victory ! 

The lilies, when they are censured for comparing 

With your more clear and native purity. 

Want white to do their penance in ! — 

DoM. So, so ! 

Have you done now, my young poetic lord? 

Oct. There will be no end, madam, of your praises. 

DoM. And to no end you have spent all this breath. 
Allow all this were wit, that some did think us 
The creatures they commend, (and those whom love 
Hath curs'd into idolatry and verse. 
May perhaps do so,) we do know ourselves 
That we are no such things. 

Oct. Is't possible? 

DoM. And laugh at your chimeras. 

Oct. You are the wiser. 

DoM. If this be your court practice, let me dwell 
With truth and plain simplicity.''' 

For such sprightly dialogue as this, for firm plot- 
structure and effective scenes, for excellent character- 

^ The Royal Master, I, if; Works, iv, 118-119. 



THE ROYAL MASTER 

delineation and for the delineation of characters that 
grow, and finally, for poetic atmosphere and roman- 
tic charm. The Royal Master is not only one of the 
best of Shirley's plays but also one of the most attrac- 
tive romantic comedies of the Elizabethan drama. 
We need not wonder that, out of all the plays of Shir- 
ley, Schipper has selected for translation into Ger- 
man The Royal Master.^ 

^ James Shirley, sein Leben und seine W erke, nebst einer Uber- 
setzung seines Dramas "The Royal Master^' von J. Schipper . . . 
Wien und Leipzig . . . igii. Schipper summarizes his impressions 
of The Royal Master as follows : 

"Wie schon diese Analyse erkennen lasst, sind die beiden Hand- 
lungen des Dramas in vortrefflicher Weise aufgebaut und miteinander 
verkniipft worden. Auch die Characteristik der Personen desselben 
verdient alles Lob. Der edelmiitige Konig und der schurkische Mon- 
talto, die leidenschaftliche Theodosia und die sanfte Domitilla sind in 
der gliicklichsten Weise kontrastriert. Dies unschuldsvolle junge 
Madchen erscheint in ihrer schwarmerischen Neigung fiir den edlen 
Konig, sodann in ihrer bitteren Enttauschung iiber ihren Irrtum und 
schliesslich wieder in dem schonen Aufschwung womit sie dem fiir 
ihre scheinbar bedrohte Ehre mannhaft eintretenden Octavio sich 
zuwendet, als eine der anziehendsten Frauengestalten, die Shirley 
geschaffen hat. 

"Der wackere Jiingling der sie gewinnt, ist ihrer wiirdig und 
sticht in seiner Ergebenheit und Treue vorteilhaft von dem wankel- 
mutigen Herzog ab. 

"Auch die komische Person des Stiickes, der alte Bombo, ist eine 
anziehende Figur und, wenn man auch gelegentlich Ziige teils von 
Shakespeares FalstafI, teils von dessen Malvolio an ihm entdeckt, 
dennoch eine originelle Personlichkeit." (Page 199.) 



1:3033 



CHAPTER XV 
THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONTINUED 

FROM THE GENTLEMAN OF VENICE 
TO THE CONSTANT MAID 

THORNDIKE, in his suggestive work on 
English tragedy, remarks that, ''in Shir- 
ley, as in Massinger, the most representa- 
tive plays, and certainly those most satisfactory to our 
taste, are the tragicomedies. Bloodshed and horror 
and grossness of language and situation may all be 
absent, and the story of love and intrigue, even if it 
does not exalt the mind or purify the passions, may be 
altogether delightful. In The Royal Master, one of 
the best, the role of the lustful monarch is assumed 
for a single scene, only to cure a really charming hero- 
ine of her infatu-ation for royalty; and the intriguing 
favorite is foiled, the banished noble vindicated, and 
two love matches completed with gracefulness of 
language and dexterity of plot. Unfortunately Shir- 
ley's land of romance is rarely so wholesome as here, 
or the inhabitants so agreeable."^ 

^Ashley H. Thorndike, Tragedy, pp. 231-232. 

1:304] 



THE GENTLEMAN OF VENICE 

Thorndike's concluding sentence is especially ap- 
plicable to the two romances that we must next dis- 
cuss: The Gentleman of Venice and The Politician. 
The former, licensed October 30, 1639, is another in- 
stance of what we have noted in The Grateful Ser- 
vant and in other plays: an instance, namely, of the 
combination of a romantic action genuinely attrac- 
tive with another action, romantic or realistic, con- 
spicuously repulsive. The first of these two plots 
centers about Giovanni, the supposed son of the 
duke's gardener Roberto. Despite his lowly environ- 
ment, Giovanni perfects himself in noble thought 
and deed, and attracts the attention of the duke's 
niece, Bellaura. When he resolves to take service in 
the wars, she provides him with armor and with a 
letter to her kinsman the commander. In an assault 
that follows, Giovanni so highly distinguishes him- 
self that the duke urges him to name his own reward. 
With some hesitation, he asks the hand of Bellaura. 
Her pride forbids. Giovanni returns to his garden- 
ing. Meanwhile, however, Thomazo, the supposed 
son of the duke, has been convicted of high treason. 
To save Thomazo, his sometime nurse Ursula (the 
supposed mother of Giovanni) begs of the duke a 
pardon for her son. Then she reveals that her son is 
the worthless Thomazo, changed in infancy, and that 
Giovanni is the rightful heir. So the duke's true son 
is married to Bellaura. 

1:3053 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The other principal action of this play centers 
about Cornari, his wife Claudiana, and an English 
gentleman, Florelli. Cornari— of great wealth but 
childless— is determined that his rascally nephew 
Malipiero shall not be his heir. To prevent this, he 
kidnaps Florelli and confines him in his palace, to 
the end that the foreigner shall get his wife with 
child. When Cornari, believing that he has forced 
his wife and his prisoner to do his will, is about to 
slay the latter, the confession of Florelli to the sup- 
posed priest (Cornari in disguise) proves to Cornari 
the virtue of them both, and shames him into the aban- 
doning of his design. For this change of purpose, 
chance brings him his reward: the rascal nephew 
Malipiero is caught with Thomazo in attempted 
treason ; and the outcome is his genuine reform. 

The repulsiveness of this second action in The 
Gentleman of Venice warrants, perhaps, the silence 
with which Schelling treats the entire play.^ And 
yet, if one can ignore the subject-matter and consider 
only the techni-que of the play, one can understand 
why, in the reign of Charles I, it did not lack "the 
best hands to applaud it in the theatre." ^ Although 

^ Although he discusses every other play of Shirley, Schelling names 
The Gentleman of Venice only in his "List of Plays" {Elizabethan 
Drama, II, 568) and in a foot-note reference to Fleay {Ibid., ll, 286, 
note). 

^ Dedication to The Gentleman of Venice, in Works, V, 3. 

1:3063 



THE POLITICIAN 

the two plots are not logically related, they are skil- 
fully interwoven. Malipiero, especially, constitutes 
a lively connecting link between the two actions : he 
is the occasion of the Cornari-plot; and his escapade 
with the duke's supposed son, Thomazo, brings about 
the revelation that solves the Giovanni-plot. The 
play is more notable, however, for the effectiveness 
of individual scenes. Conspicuous among these, at 
least for realism, are Malipiero's quarrel with his 
uncle ^ and the night of riot at the courtezan's.® 
These scenes, indeed, are worthy of Restoration com- 
edy at its best. And even better is the characteriza- 
tion. All the leading characters— Cornari, Claudi- 
ana, Florelli, Giovanni, Bellaura, Thomazo, Mali- 
piero— are clearly drawn, but the duke's gardener, 
Roberto, and his froward wife, Ursula, are really 
notable creations. That such scenes and characters 
appear in the same play with the Cornari-story is 
most unfortunate. 

The Politician, which, in the lack of definite infor- 
mation, we have ventured to place in the year 1639, 
is a somber and, at times, repulsive tragedy, in which 
political ambition is the motive, lust and assassination 
are the accepted means, and the miscarriage of the vil- 
lain's plans is the cause of downfall. Gotharus, "the 

* The Gentleman of Venice, I, i; Works, V, 5-10. 
^ Ibid., Ill, iv; Works, v, 47-54. 

Do?: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

politician," designing to control the throne of Nor- 
way, first despatches Turgesius, the prince royal, and 
Duke Olaus, the prince's granduncle, on a far cam- 
paign, with the purpose that the prince shall lose his 
life; then marries the lustful king to Marpisa, widow 
of Count Altomarus and long Gotharus's mistress; 
and plans that he will advance Marpisa's son, Haral- 
dus— of whom Gotharus believes himself the father 
— as successor to the crown. Finding that Haraldus 
is too innocent to be his efficient tool and hearing 
that Prince Turgesius is marching home victorious, 
Gotharus resolves to debauch the character of the for- 
mer and to cause the asassination of the latter. In 
this twofold attempt, however, Gotharus begins his 
downfall. Haraldus, made drunk by the politician's 
creatures and overwhelmed with the discovery of his 
mother's relations with Gotharus, dies of a fever and 
a broken heart. The supposed assassination of Prince 
Turgesius stirs the populace to riotous rebellion. The 
army clamors at the gates. Marpisa turns against 
Gotharus. To escape the rabble, he slays one of his 
confederates, and, after long and hopeless flight, 
takes refuge in a coffin prepared for Prince Turge- 
sius. The rabble, finding the coffin, march forth to 
bury it with honors. They meet the army headed by 
Duke Olaus and the living Turgesius ; and, opening 
the coffin, they find, within, the politician— dead. 

1:308:1 



THE POLITICIAN 

Then comes Marpisa; boasts that she has poisoned 
Gotharus for the death of Haraldus, her son; and, 
from the same poison, dies before them all. Turge- 
sius, who has escaped death through the loyalty of 
the supposed assassin, restores his penitent father to 
the throne, and announces his purpose to wed Albina, 
the wronged and virtuous widow of the politician. 

Of the power of this play, from scene to scene, the 
following passage from the final act is a concrete 
illustration : 

An Apartment in the Palace, Enter King and Marpisa. 

King. Oh, I am lost ! and, my soul bleeds to think. 
By my own dotage upon thee. 

Marpisa. I was curs'd 

When I first saw thee, poor, wind-shaken king ! 
I have lost my son. 

King. Thy honour, impious woman, 

Of more price than a son, or thy own life. 
I had a son too, whom my rashness sent 
To another world, my poor Turgesius. 
What sorcery of thy tongue and eyes betray'd me ? 

Marp. I would I had been a basilisk, to have shot 
A death to thy dissembling heart, when I 
Gave myself up thy queen ! I was secure. 
Till thou, with the temptation of greatness. 
And flattery, didst poison my sweet peace ; 
And shall thy base fears leave me now a prey 
To rebels? 

King. I had been happy to have left 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Thee sooner. But begone I get to some wilderness 
Peopled with serpents, and engender with 
Some dragon like thyself. 

Marp. ' Ha I ha ! 

KiXG. Dost laugh, thou prodig}'. thou shame of 
woman I 

Marp. Yes, and despise thee, dotard. Vex till thy 
soul 
Break from thy rotten flesh; I will be merry 
At thy last groan. 

KiXG. O, my poor boy ! my son ! 

His wound is printed here.— That false Gothams, 
Your wanton goat. I fear, practis'd with thee 
His death. 

]^Iarp. 'Twas thy own act and timorous heart. In 
hope 
To be secure. I glory in the mention, 
Thou murderer of thy son I 

Enter HORMEXUS. 

HoR. Oh. sir, if ever, stand upon your guard I 
The army, which you thought scattered and broke, 
Is grown into a great and threatening body. 
Led by the duke Dlaus. your lov'd uncle ; 
Is marching hither : all your subjects fly to hun. [£.v//-.] 

Marp. Ha 1 ha : 

KlXG. Curse on thy spleen I Is this a time for 
laughter. 
When horror should afflict thy giiilty soul? 
Hence, mischief I 

Marp. Not to obey thee, shadow of a king, 

[310] 



THE POLITICIAN 

Am I content to leave thee ; and, but I would not 
Prevent thy greater sorrow and vexation, 
Now I would kill thee, coward. 

King. Treason ! treason ! 

Marp. Ay, ay; who comes to your rescue? 

King. Are all fled? 

Marp. Slaves do it naturally. 

King. Canst thou hope to 'scape? 

Marp. I am mistress of my fate ; and do not fear 
Their inundation, their army coming. 
It does prepare my triumph. They shall give 
Me liberty, and punish thee to live. 

King. Undone, forsaken, miserable king ! 

\_Exeunt severally.}^ 

No single scene, however, can give an adequate 
conception of the cumulative effect of the entire play. 
In theme and tone, The Politician is vaguely remi- 
niscent both of Hamlet and of Macbeth: like the lat- 
ter, it has for its protagonists an ambitious man and 
woman who stop at nothing to attain their ends ; like 
the former, it deals with the corrupt conditions of a 
northern court and with a series of attempts against 
the rightful heir. In Marpisa and in Gotharus, we 
note something of character-development from scene 
to scene. Particularly in the closing act— in the scene 
just quoted and in that which follows— the ferocity 
of the erstwhile timorous Marpisa approaches to 

* The Politician, v, i; Works, v, 162-164. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

magnificence^ But the play has nothing of the pro- 
found psychology of a Shaksperian masterpiece. It 
impresses one rather for its swift, tense scenes, its 
gloom, its horror. Nor does the survival of king and 
prince and duke and injured wife render The Poli- 
tician less a tragedy. Shirley has not made these 
characters so interesting as to violate the unity of 
effect. Not these but the tragic figures are the pro- 
tagonists. Gotharus and Marpisa aspire, suffer, die. 
Haraldus dies ; and, ere he dies, he suffers. And per- 
meating all is the atmosphere of social rottenness: 
the king's lust for Marpisa and for the chaste Albina ; 
the double adultery of Gotharus and Marpisa; the 
piteous life and death of young Haraldus— the law- 
ful issue of Marpisa and Count Altomarus, yet be- 
lieved by Gotharus, by the court, and, for a tragic 
hour, by himself, to be the unlawful issue of Marpisa 
and Gotharus. Such is Shirley's The Politician: 
terrible, despite the survival of many innocent; effec- 
tive, notwithstanding clap-trap and the absence of 
profound psychology; a romantic tragedy that is 
almost notable. 
Whether the repulsive element that we have just 

'^ Of the latter scene {The Politician, v, i\', Works, v, 164-176) 
Schelling writes : "Strained to the verge of improbability though much 
of it is, there is a holding power in the last scene of this tragedy, 
into which is crowded the unexpected discovery of the dead traitor, 
the pitiable lamentations of his miserable wife, the splendid Marpisa 
at bay, and the reconciliation of the prince and his father." — Schelling, 
Elizabethan Drama, II, 320. 

1:312: 



ST. PATRICK FOR IRELAND 

noted in The Gentleman of Venice and in The Poli- 
tician, was characteristic also of the two lost plays, 
The Tragedy of St. Albans and Look to the Lady, 
entered in the Stationers' Register on February 14 
and March 11, respectively, in the year 1639/40, is a 
subject only for conjecture. We find, however, some- 
thing of this same repulsiveness in that strange play 
St. Patrick for Ireland, entered in the Stationers' 
Register on April 28, 1640. Of this play, according 
to Schipper, the dramatis personce may be classified 
as "christliche Priester und heidnische Barden und 
Magier; Engel, Geister und auch Schlangen."^ 
Nominally a drama centering about the struggle be- 
tween paganism and Christianity in Ireland, the play 
becomes, in fact, a jumble of lofty religious fervor, 
blood-and-thunder magic, miracles, licentiousness, 
and horse-play. On the one hand, two youths dis- 
guise themselves as statues in the temple, and thus 
gain opportunity to meet the king's daughters, their 
willing mistresses; another maiden is violated by a 
prince masquerading as a god; and a magic bracelet 
that renders the wearer invisible, enables a servant 
to play all sorts of pranks. On the other hand, the 
play presents a not unworthy picture of St. Patrick, 
includes the conversion of the royal family, and cul- 
minates gloriously in the expulsion of the snakes 

® Schipper, James Shirley, sein Leben und seine Werke, p. 205. 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

from Ireland, Further description or discussion of 
the play would be superfluous. No wonder that St. 
Patrick was never licensed for the London stage, and 
that the promised "second part"^ is non-extant! 

From the tainted atmosphere of The Gentleman of 
Venice, The Politician, and St. Patrick for Ireland, 
it is refreshing to pass even to the triviality of The 
Constant Maid. As the licensing of this play is not 
recorded, and as the entry in the Stationers' Register 
was upon the same day as that of St. Patrick for Ire- 
land — namely, on April 28, 1640 — The Constant 
Maid has been usually assigned to the years of Shir- 
ley's residence in Dublin. Were we, however, to 
judge of the date of its composition by the emphasis 
upon complication and episode, by the absence of 
individual characterization— unless the conventional 
usurer and country gull be accounted individual— 
by the reversion in subject to London life and man- 
ners, and by the slightness of the play in all respects, 
we should be likely, on the strength of this internal 
evidence, to assign the play rather to the period of 
hove Tricks and other early imitative work. 

Such as it is, the main action of The Constant Maid 

® See the last line of the prologue, in Works, iv, 365, and the epi- 
logue, Works, IV, 443. Krapp, in his monograph The Legend of Saint 
Patrick's Purgatory, Its Later Literary History, p. vi, note 2, is 
"inclined to think" that, "though there is no direct mention of the 
Purgatory, ... it was to have been the subject of the second part" 
of Shirley's play. 

1:314: 



THE CONSTANT MAID 

is at least a clever series of variations upon the ancient 
proverb that the course of true love never did run 
smooth. Hartwell, a young gentleman of good birth 
and character but limited means, is the accepted lover 
of Frances, daughter of the wealthy widow Bellamy. 
The mother, however, abruptly withdraws her ap- 
proval of the match, and commands Frances to accept 
instead the suit of Master Startup, a rich countryman 
who is half a fool. Then the widow offers herself 
and her fortune to her daughter's lover, Hartwell. 
He, by the advice of his friend Playfair (the hero 
of the second action), resolves to pretend to accept 
the widow's offer, in order that he may continue his 
attendance upon Frances. Frances's nurse, how- 
ever, overhears this plot, and determines, in the inter- 
est of the countryman, to thwart it. Before Hartwell 
can explain the stratagem to his lady-love, the nurse 
sets on the foolish Master Startup to tell Frances that 
Hartwell woos her mother. By chance, Hartwell at 
that very moment avows to the widow his acceptance 
of her hand ; and the daughter overhears them. To 
follow up this advantage, the nurse connives with 
Startup to admit him that night to Frances's cham- 
ber. Unwisely, however, the nurse reveals her pur- 
poses to Hartwell's servant; and he, in turn, reveals 
the plot to Master Hartwell. Hartwell, that he may 
test the true feeling of Mistress Frances, arranges to 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

appear in Startup's stead. Startup, to avoid suspi- 
cion, has retired early; Hartwell's servant tells him 
that Hartwell is seeking him to slay him; and this so 
frightens Startup that he flees to the fields dressed 
only in his shirt. By this device, Hartwell obtains 
possession of his rival's clothes and opportunity. The 
nurse, meanwhile, to prove to Frances the worthless- 
ness of Hartwell, tells her that her mother did but 
pretend an offer of love to test him, and that he in- 
stantly accepted. Frances, however, believing that 
Hartwell likewise counterfeited, remains constant. 
Then the nurse reenters, leading Hartwell disguised 
as Startup. This disguise Frances penetrates; but 
Hartwell, not comprehending this, believes that her 
vows of love for him are meant for Startup. Before 
she can explain, they are interrupted by an alarm: 
Hartwell, despairing, leaves the house; and Frances 
is left mourning. Startup, meanwhile, convoyed by 
Hartwell's servant, flies through the cold and terror 
of the fields, narrowly escapes a meeting with the 
raging Hartwell, and at last is arrested by the con- 
stable and watch. In the midst of the excitement 
occasioned by the disappearance of the rivals, a coun- 
tryman arrives at Mistress Bellamy's. Startup, he 
declares, has trifled with his daughter, and must 
make amends by marriage. Frances rejoices at the 
prospect of being rid of Startup; but her mother 



THE CONSTANT MAID 

quickly turns her joy to grief. At first, declares the 
mother, she did but pretend a love for Hartwell; but 
when he offered a return of her affection, her love 
became real: she, Bellamy, must marry Hartwell 
regardless of her daughter. As soon, however, as the 
mother has sufficiently tested Frances's love for 
Hartwell, she admits that she again has but pre- 
tended: she has now tested both, and the marriage 
of Hartwell and Frances soon shall be. This happy 
prospect, however, is shattered presently by awful 
news. The countryman and the watch, in search of 
Startup, have discovered Hartwell dressed in Start- 
up's clothes, and have accused him of the death of 
Startup ; and Hartwell has confessed the murder. In 
the court-room, in hearing of Frances and her 
mother, he again admits his guilt, and adds that the 
scorn of Frances was the cause. Then he discovers 
his mistake ; he learns that Frances has been, through- 
out, the Constant Maid. He retracts his plea of 
guilty; and, at that moment, the watch bring Startup, 
living, into court. ^^ Hartwell and Frances are at 
last united. 

My relation of this the first action of The Con- 
stant Maid has resulted in a lengthy narrative ; but by 
no other method could I show concretely the real 
nature of the play. Aside from the figure of the fool- 

^® Cf. the resolution in The Wedding, v, ii; Works, i, 445. 

1:3173 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ish Startup, the interest results solely from the rapid 
and unexpected twists and turns of fortune. The 
setting and characters are those of the comedy of 
London life and manners; but the use of surprise 
upon surprise is almost the method of Fletcherian 
romance. 

The second action, fortunately, may be more briefly 
told : a new and more realistic version of the elope- 
ment of Shakspere's Jessica and Lorenzo. As Hor- 
net, the usurer, is about to poison a niece, his ward, 
that he may take her fortune, her lover, Playfair, 
learns of his intent. To cover her flight, Playfair 
arranges with a group of friends and servants to im- 
personate the king and a group of lords, to summon 
Hornet to their banquet, to knight him, and to enter- 
tain him with a masque. In the midst of this. Hornet 
discovers his eloping niece dancing with Playfair— 
only to be persuaded that she is not his niece but the 
daughter of his host, Sir Clement. Next morning. 
Hornet discovers his mistake, and surrenders to his 
niece her fortune lest his plot to poison her be 
charged against him. 

Between these two actions of the play, the connec- 
tion is but accidental. Playfair, the hero of the sec- 
ond action, is a friend of Hartwell, the hero of the 
first; Hornet, the usurer, appears in the opening 
scenes as a suitor to Widow Bellamy; and both actions 



THE CONSTANT MAID 

end in the court of Justice Clement: these— these only 
—are the connecting links. Superficial in structure, 
the play shows equal haste in characterization : only 
in the stock characters of Startup and Hornet are the 
persons individual. These two figures, together with 
the succession of surprises in the Hartwell-Frances 
action, are what ^^make" the play. It is chiefly note- 
worthy as a reversion from the romantic plays of 
Shirley's final period to the realistic plays of Shirley's 
youth. 

To synthesize our impressions of the four plays 
considered in this chapter, is not easy. They have too 
few points in common. The Constant Maid is clean, 
clever, but trivial and amateurish ; to be remembered 
only as one more essay in the comedy of manners. St, 
Patrick for Ireland is beneath remark. The Gentle- 
man of Venice, in so far as it tells the story of Gio- 
vanni and his foster-parents, is delightful comedy; 
but in so far as it deals with the endeavors of Cornari, 
it has a repulsiveness that neither the dramaturgic 
skill of Shirley nor the virtue of Cornari's wife can 
soften. The Politician, on the other hand, notwith- 
standing its offensive theme, possesses a tragic power 
of plot, of situation, and of character, that places it 
among the abler plays of Shirley. Little in common, 
then, have these four plays; but three of them are 
repulsive in material, and yet they are not realistic 
but romantic. 



CHAPTER XVI 

THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONTINUED 

FROM THE DOUBTFUL HEIR TO 
THE BROTHERS OF 1652 

THE plays considered in the two chapters 
just preceding vary materially in their ar- 
tistic effectiveness and in their ethical 
acceptability. On the one hand, The Royal Master 
is a play both ably written and delightful. On the 
other hand, The Gentleman of Venice and, to an even 
greater extent, The Politician combine with excel- 
lence of treatment an extreme repulsiveness of sub- 
ject-matter; St. Patrick for Ireland, except for the 
poetic beauty of an occasional passage, is pleasing 
neither artistically nor ethically; and The Constant 
Maidj although morally inoffensive, is dramaturgi- 
cally a return to the amateurish efforts of our poet's 
youth. Now, however, in the three chapters that are 
to complete our discussion of Shirley's last dramatic 
period, we come to six successive plays— TA^ Doubt- 
ful Heir, The Imposture, The Politique Father (i.e.. 
The Brothers of 1652), The Cardinal, The Sisters, 

1:3203 



THE DOUBTFUL HEIR 

and The Court Secret— M of which are both pleas- 
ingly and ably written, and one of which — The Car- 
dinal—is a great tragedy not only in comparison with 
the other plays of Shirley but in comparison with the 
plays of any of the later Elizabethan dramatists. 
And of these six plays, all but ont—The Politique 
Father— belong not to the realistic but to the roman- 
tic school. 

The first of these, The Doubtful Heir, which was 
licensed June i, 1640, is a capital bit of Fletcherian 
romance, swift of action, exciting of episode, fertile 
of surprise, and genuinely poetic. Just as Olivia, the 
Queen of Murcia, is about to be married to Leonario, 
the Prince of Arragon, their preparations are inter- 
rupted by the invasion of one Ferdinand who claims 
to be the rightful heir to the throne, a cousin of the 
queen, believed to have died in childhood. Against 
this pretender, the bridegroom leads the army, and 
returns victorious, bringing the claimant prisoner. 
With the pretender comes a gentle page, Tiberio; 
and this page a pretty love-scene in the prison reveals 
to the audience as Ferdinand's betrothed, Rosania. 
Summoned to stand trial for high treason, Ferdinand 
boldly avows himself the rightful king, and declares 
that one is present who could, if he would, attest his 
royal birth. When, however, the aged chancellor 
reproaches Ferdinand for endangering the lives of 

[32O 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Others, Ferdinand says no more. The queen, much 
moved by Ferdinand's noble bearing and by his 
words of parting to his page, commands the inter- 
mission of the trial during her absence from the 
room. The nobles, however, with the concurrence of 
the Prince of Arragon, are about to pass sentence 
on the pretender, when the queen, warned by the 
chancellor, returns. Highly indignant, the queen 
reproves her betrothed, the Prince of Arragon; par- 
dons the pretender; declares that they may yet find 
Ferdinand's title to the kingdom clear, and com- 
mands him to escort her from the court! 

As might have been expected in a Fletcherian ro- 
mance, this seeming resolution is but the beginning of 
a further complication. Married to the pretender, 
the queen becomes wild at his neglect. She questions 
the page as to whether Ferdinand has not a mistress; 
and, seeing Ferdinand approach, she tries to arouse 
his jealousy by caressing this supposed Tiberio, and 
then leaves the two together. Then follows a sorrow- 
ful meeting between Ferdinand and his disguised 
Rosania. He explains that he consented to the mar- 
riage ceremony only to make possible his escape with 
her ; and that with the queen his marriage never has 
been consummated. Ultimately, after Ferdinand 
has overruled Rosania's purpose to leave him to the 
queen, he prevails upon her to obey the queen's sum- 

1:322] 



THE DOUBTFUL HEIR 

mons to her chamber and to leave to him the solution 
of the meeting. When the queen, smarting at Fer- 
dinand's continued neglect and now assured that he 
has a mistress in the court, is endeavoring to woo his 
page (Rosania-Tiberio) to sinful love, Ferdinand 
brings the nobles to the royal chamber to take them 
in the fact. To his surprise, the queen receives his 
charges with composure ; and, while her maid, in an 
inner room, is disguising the page in woman's garb, 
her Majesty reads the court a pretty lecture. And 
then, just as Ferdinand, breaking through the queen's 
pretense, is about to seize upon the ''boy," a spy em- 
ployed by the Prince of Arragon reveals the plot: the 
page in woman's dress is indeed a woman and— is 
Ferdinand's mistress! 

Again imprisoned, and condemned to death, Fer- 
dinand awaits his execution. Instead, he finds him- 
self hailed by the chancellor and a throng of nobles 
as the rightful king. The chancellor it was that res- 
cued him from death in childhood and arranged for 
his escape across the border; the chancellor, repent- 
ing his long silence, now testifies to Ferdinand's iden- 
tity. Enthroned, King Ferdinand summons his 
sometime page, Rosania, to become his queen, and 
declares that it is now no blemish to Olivia still to be 
a virgin. Olivia, he announces, shall now be married 
to the Prince of Arragon. Suddenly, however, their 

D23] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

joy is interrupted; the Prince of Arragon with an 
unexpected host has scaled the walls! King Ferdi- 
nand and his court are instant prisoners. With a 
command that Ferdinand be put to death, the victor 
sweeps Olivia to the chapel to be made his bride. 
For a last time Ferdinand and Rosania say farewell. 
The bearded general of the Prince of Arragon bears 
down upon them, tears off his false beard, and reveals 
— Rosania's father, kinsman of the chancellor, the 
guardian of the infant Ferdinand! The army that 
Arragon supposed to be his own is Valentia's army 
sent to the aid of Ferdinand upon his first repulse. 
It has intercepted Arragon's messengers, and has 
tricked him with its feigned support. And so, at- 
tended by a loyal and victorious host. King Ferdi- 
nand resumes his reign, and is married to his boy- 
hood sweetheart, fair Rosania. 

Such is the romantic story of The Doubtful Heir: 
swift, exciting, unexpected, with a final suspense that 
keeps one almost breathless. That it is a reworking 
of old material, we grant: the royal bridegroom lead- 
ing to victory the army of the queen may have been 
(I do not say was) suggested by the unused portion 
of El Castigo del Penseque — the play from which 
Shirley drew much of his material for The Oppor- 
tunity; the situation of a queen forcing her hand upon 
a prince previously contracted and ultimately true to 

[324] 



THE DOUBTFUL HEIR 

his first love, is but a better version of the Sophia- 
Arcadius-Polidora action in The Coronation; the 
scene in which the chancellor hails as king the im- 
prisoned Ferdinand, is an echo of that in which the 
lord protector in The Coronation hails the impris- 
oned Seleucus-Leonatus ; the relation of the tricky 
captain to the gullible citizens in the subplot (which 
I have not attempted to describe) recalls the relation 
of Captain Mauritio to the foolish Fabio in The 
Young Admiral; the scene in which the queen, to woo 
Tiberio (the disguised Rosania), assumes the part 
of the man and requires Tiberio to play the maid, 
might be accounted a new version of the scene in As 
You Like It, in which Rosalind, disguised as a man, 
requires Orlando to address her as a woman. ^ In- 
deed, the entire foundation of The Doubtful Heir— 
a prince concealed in infancy and a maiden playing 
she-page to her lover — is almost as old as is romance 
itself : all this we grant. But above this seeming lack 
of inventiveness stand out two facts : In the first place, 
Shirley, like Shakspere, was shrewd enough, on find- 
ing an effective situation, to repeat it and to improve 
upon it: as Shakspere, having attempted to portray 
an inconstant lover in his Proteus of Two Gentlemen 
of Verona, repeated the figure in his Lysander of A 
Midsummer Night's Dream and bettered it by mak- 

^ Shakspere, As You Like It, iv, i. 

1:3253 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ing it more reasonable — if fairy intervention can be 
accepted as a reason— so Shirley, having made the 
lover of Polidora marry Sophia in The Coronation 
of 1635, makes the lover of Rosania marry Olivia 
in The Doubtful Heir of 1640, and, in repeating the 
figure, betters it by supplying better motivation. In 
the second place, Shirley in his management of plot 
has learned to obtain a maximum of effect with a 
minimum of effort: to concentrate more complica- 
tions upon fewer dramatis personce. The story for 
which, in The Coronation^ he used six major figures, 
he retold five years later in The Doubtful Heir with 
four. He condensed the lord protector and his son 
into the single figure of the Prince of Arragon; he 
condensed Seleucus-Leonatus and Arcadius-Deme- 
trius into the single figure of King Ferdinand; he 
retained Sophia in Olivia, Polidora in Rosania; and 
to the latter he added the part of the faithful maiden 
playing page to a seemingly unfaithful lover. Such 
is the dramatic economy of Shirley: another excellent 
illustration of his mastery of technique. 

As The Doubtful Heir is typical Fletcherian ro- 
mance in its reliance upon unexpected situations and 
upon skilful management of plot, so is it typical in 
the limitation and nature of its characterization. 
The character-drawing in this play is not psychologi- 
cally profound; it makes slight attempt to portray 

D263 



THE DOUBTFUL HEIR 

character-development; it realizes the several dra- 
matis persoTKE only so far as they are essential to the 
story or to the scene of the moment; it accounts itself 
merely a means, not an end in itself. Rosania and 
Ferdinand and the Prince of Arragon, from prologue 
to epilogue, remain the same; they suffer, but they 
learn little from their sufferings; they are no older 
for their sad experience. As for the queen, with her 
startling change of passion from the prince to the pre- 
tender, from the pretender to the pretender's page, 
she is at least consistent in her inconsistency; but her 
first change is frankly without sufficient motive, and 
her return to her first love is the result of his victory, 
not of her volition. In all four major figures, the 
characterization is adequate and pleasing, but it is 
nothing more. To make it more would be to remove 
the play from the company of Fletcherian romance 
to— or at least toward— \!^t society of Shaksperian 
tragicomedy; to shift the interest from episode to 
character. 

And finally in language, as in character and plot, 
Shirley in The Doubtful Heir follows in the foot- 
steps of his master Fletcher. Not strength but sweet- 
ness—of thought and of expression— is the character- 
istic quality of the more poetic passages in Shirley. 
In illustration, I quote some portions of the prison- 
scene in which Ferdinand is first hailed as king. My 

1:3273 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

omissions are chiefly passages of explanation, not 
vital to my present purpose: 

Ferdinand. I have no heart to think of anything 
But my Rosania ; all devotion, 
When I remember her, flies off, and leaves 
My soul no contemplation but her safety. 
They were too cruel to divide us. Night 
Itself looks now more black by this dim taper. 
Rosania's eyes would brighten all; but they, 
Weigh'd down with sleep and sorrow, are perhaps 
At rest : a thousand angels watch about them ! 
And let some one whose office is to wait 
On harmless love, present me to her dreams. 
Oh let her hear me often call upon her. 
As I am led to death ! and when the stroke 
Divides me from myself and from the world, 
My heart shall pay her tribute, and my blood 
Do miracles, when every crimson drop 
My body bleeds shall not in vain be wept, 
But fall into some letter of her name. 
To keep alive our story. — What lights are these? 
This place sure is not wont to be thus visited. 
They are spirits. Ha ! yet If I have memory, 
Those faces were 'but late familiar to me. 
What mockery Is this ? If you be substances 
Of things I know, go tell the tyrant queen 
She might allow me death without this scorn. 
This jeering anti-masque. 

Omnes. Long live the king ! 

Ferd. What king? 



THE DOUBTFUL HEIR 

Omnes. Long live Ferdinand, king of 

Murcia ! 

Ferd. a dream, a golden dream ! What fancies wait 
Upon our sleep ! and yet I wake ; they are 
Apparitions; I'll shut my eyes, and lose them. 
They will not vanish. Leandro, Rodriguez, Ernesto? 

Omnes. All your subjects. 

Leandro. Collect your scatter'd thoughts, my lord, 
and be 
Assured, we now pay real duties to you; 
You are our king, and must be. . . . 

Ferd. I may command you then. Fetch me Rosania ; 
I'll be no king without her. Do not stay 
To hear how much I love her 'bove the crown. 
And all the glories wait upon it : she 
That was my page, my fellow prisoner, 
Rosania! 

'Tis that name, next to heaven, I bow to. 
Good my lord, follow him; and if she be 
Awake, oh drop it gently by degrees 
(The joy is mighty, she a sad weak virgin) 
That I shall live to make her queen. . . . 
She comes, she comes ! . . . 
See how the day that made 
Haste to salute Rosania, and to wait 
Upon thy triumph, blushes like a maid 
When she is told she is in love ! the stars 
Are gone to tell the other world thy beauty, 
Till now eclips'd with sorrow, hath thrown off 

[329] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

The imprisoning veil, and shines above their 

brightness. ... 
Come, my Rosania, time hath turn'd again 
Our glass, and his keen scythe this comfort brings : 
It cuts no sceptres down, but to make kings.^ 

This poetic element w^hich we have just noted in 
The Doubtful Heir appears again in The Imposture, 
licensed five months later, November lo, 1640. In 
The Imposture, w^e observe as w^ell the emphasis 
upon plot and situation rather than upon character. 
The Imposture, how^ever, differs from The Doubtful 
Heir in that the action springs from the deliberate 
initiative of the dramatis persons rather than from 
chance, and that the interest, scene by scene, results 
not so much from surprise as from the struggle be- 
tween contending characters. In short. The Doubt- 
ful Heir is merely a romance; The Imposture is a 
comedy of romantic intrigue. 

The plot of The Imposture centers about a struggle 
betw^een Flaviano, favorite of the Duke of Mantua, 
on the one hand-, and the duke's son and daughter on 
the other, concerning the proposed marriage of the 
latter to Prince Leonato of Ferrara. Lured by a 
promise of Fioretta's hand, the Prince of Ferrara 
has brought his army to the aid of Mantua. Flavi- 
ano, how^ever, himself aspires to the hand of Fioretta; 

2 The Doubtful Heir, v, ii; Works, iv, 342-346. 

C3303 



THE IMPOSTURE 

and therefore, taking advantage of the fact that her 
brother, Honorio, lies wounded, he persuades the 
duke that the Prince of Ferrara is a wild young 
man, morally unfit to marry Fioretta ; removes Fio- 
retta to a convent, and thence, secretly, to his mother's 
country house; and finally brings word to the expec- 
tant prince that Fioretta has vowed to remain in the 
convent for a year— to the postponement of the wed- 
ding. Prince Leonato, indignant at what he believes 
to be the perfidy of the duke, demands a personal 
interview with Fioretta. This interview they do not 
dare deny; but Flaviano, with the duke's consent, 
plots to provide a substitute for Fioretta. In the con- 
vent is a novice, Juliana, Flaviano's cast-ofif mistress; 
and her he persuades to play Fioretta's part. He in- 
structs her even to wed Prince Leonato ; but the duke, 
unwilling to abuse Ferrara thus, secretly commands 
Juliana to insist on the year's postponement of the 
marriage as before proposed. When the Prince of 
Ferrara comes to her at the convent, she pretends obe- 
dience to the duke's command. The prince, however, 
finds in her reply a hint that she is not unwilling to 
be carried off by force. With a picked company, 
therefore, he breaks into the convent, and bears off 
Juliana— the counterfeit Fioretta— as his bride-to-be. 
The scene now changes to Ferrara, whither, sus- 
picious of Flaviano's treatment, the real Fioretta has 

[330 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

come under an assumed name, to become, as it hap- 
pens, the guest of Prince Leonato's sister, Donabella. 
Hither also has come Honorio, to avenge what he 
supposes to have been the rape of his sister Fioretta. 
As he and Prince Leonato are about to fight, Juliana 
and the princess Donabella rush between their 
swords. Confronted by Honorio, Juliana so amazes 
him that she gains his temporary silence and so saves 
the situation. Left alone, Honorio is presently found 
and welcomed by his sister Fioretta. Juliana, mean- 
while, resolves on self-destruction. She tells the 
prince that she is not Fioretta, but a noble virgin 
compelled by the Duke of Mantua to personate his 
daughter. That she is the cast-off mistress of Fla- 
viano, she neglects to state; she stresses rather the 
fact that it was against her will that the prince bore 
her from the convent. At this moment, Honorio — 
whom Flaviano has followed from Mantua that he 
may slay him — breaks in upon the prince and Juliana 
with Flaviano prisoner. Honorio starts to tell Prince 
Leonato all of Flaviano's treachery. The prince, be- 
lieving that Juliana's tale is all, cuts Honorio short; 
tells him that he will hear nothing from him ; and de- 
clares his purpose to wed the noble virgin (Juliana) 
and to make war on Mantua for the duke's deceit: 

Leonato. ... I know all the business, 
And am resolved In my revenge. — Juliana, 



THE IMPOSTURE 

Sweet suffering maid, dry thy fair eyes ; 'tis I 
Must make thee satisfaction. I thus, 
By thy own name, receive thee to my bosom. — 
But you, that practis'd cunning, shall, ere time 
Contract the age of one pale moon, behold 
The country I preserv'd, a heap of ruins. . . . 

HoNORio. Do you know 
Whom you embrace? Flaviano has confess'd 
Himself the traitor, and the black contriver 
Of all this mischief. Leonato, hear me, 
Or by thy father, newly f all'n to ashes, 
I shall repent I had an honourable 
Thought of thee. — Flaviano! — Madam witchcraft! 
My rage will strangle my discourse ; my soul 
Is leaping forth to be reveng'd upon 
That devil. — Prince, keep off; his very breath 
Will stifle thee, and damn thy honour to 
All ages. Fioretta's now in court. 

Flav. Ha ! in the court ? 

Leo. This is some new device. 

Hon. I charge thee, by thy blood, throw off these 
harpies, 
And do my sister justice, whom their treason 
Hath made a scorn. That minute she usurps 
Her name of bride, I shall forget the altar 
And turn myself the priest, with all your blood 
To make a purging sacrifice. 

Leo. If, when we 

Receive our rites, thou dost but frown, or whisper 
To interrupt our ceremony, I 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Will make thee hold the tapers, while the priest 

Performs the holy office. Tell thy sister 

Here I bestow what you have made me forfeit. 

Present her to the nunnery, and counsel 

Thy ignoble father, when I next see Mantua, 

To be asleep in's coffin, and his vault 

Deep, and thick ribb'd with marble : my noise else 

Will shake his dust. Thy youth finds mercy yet ; 

Take the next whirlwind, and remove — Our guard! — 

Petronio, we confine him to your house. . . . [Exeunt.l^ 

For the moment, the intrigues of Flaviano seem 
to triumph, but only for the moment. Flaviano's con- 
federate, Claudio, betrays him to the prince. The 
prince accuses Juliana; she begs for mercy; and he 
casts her off. The Duke of Mantua arrives to save 
his son. At the same moment enter Fioretta, Juliana, 
and the princess Donabella. The old duke recognizes 
his daughter. The princess— w^ho, in her love for 
Honorio, has mistaken his sister Fioretta for her rival 
— runs joyously to find him. The prince, likew^ise 
discovering the identity of Mantua's daughter, in- 
stantly resolves to have her for his bride. To Hono- 
rio he gives his sister Donabella. To a nunnery he 
dismisses Juliana; to exile, the intriguing Flaviano. 

This extended outline and the quoted scene have 
given, I trust, an adequate idea of The Imposture: a 

^ The Imposture, IV, v; Works, V, 244-245. 

[3343 



THE IMPOSTURE 

romantic play characterized, both scene by scene and 
as a whole, by struggle and intrigue and poetic pas- 
sion. The subplot, which presents a coward son, a 
masking mother, and a drinking-bout, need not de- 
tain us. But we must not dismiss the play without 
quoting the eight-line epilogue spoken by Juliana 
— an epilogue which, in its contrast between the real 
character of the actor and the part he plays, possesses 
a humor not unlike that of the more famous epilogue 
which Dryden wrote for that ''little harmless devil," 
Nell Gwyn.* Fully to appreciate the fun, we must 
recall, first, that The Imposture was acted by the 
King's men at the private house in Black Fryers, and, 
second, that the part of Juliana— as of the other wo- 
men in the cast— was played by a man. 

Epilogue, spoken by Juliana. 

Now the play's done, I will confess to you, 
And will not doubt but you'll absolve me too ; 
There is a mystery; let it not go far, 
For this confession is auricular: 
I am sent among the nuns, to fast and pray, 
And suffer piteous penance ; ha, ha, ha ! 
They could no better way please my desires : 
I am no nun— but one of the Black Friars.^ 

* Dryden, Epilogue to Tyrannic Love. 

^ Epilogue to The Imposture, in Works, V, 269. 

1:3353 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Six months after the licensing of The Imposture, 
appeared The Politique Father, licensed May 26, 
1 641. The grounds for identifying this with the play 
published as The Brothers in 1652, I have presented 
in an earlier chapter. If the latter be indeed The 
Politique Father, and not the play licensed as The 
Brothers in 1626, then we must account it not one of 
the earliest but the very last of Shirley's comedies of 
manners. Its scene and characters are nominally 
Spanish; but it affords no further grounds for not 
accounting it a comedy of London life. 

If this play published as The Brothers in 1652 be, 
as we have concluded, The Politique Father of 1641, 
then the character from whom it first was named is 
Don Ramyres, the father of Fernando and Fran- 
cisco.^ This politic father desires to marry his 
eldest son and heir, Fernando, to Jacinto, daughter 
of the rich Don Carlos. To this plan, Ramyres gains 
the seeming acquiescence of Don Carlos; but when 
he brings Fernando for the wooing, the ungrateful 
heir takes the opportunity to woo Jacinta's penniless 
cousin Felisarda, while the younger brother pursues 
a long-standing love-affair with rich Jacinta. When 
Fernando, however, on being cross-questioned by 
Ramyres, admits his love for Felisarda and his bro- 

® That Francisco, in the opening scene {Works, i, 195), speaks of 
Don Carlos as "a provident father," has been cited in support of a 
different interpretation. Fleay, English Drama, il, 246. 

D363 



THE POLITIQUE FATHER (THE BROTHERS) 

ther's standing with the heiress, the politic father, 
in a seeming rage, applauds the thriftiness of his 
younger son and heaps disinheritance and a father's 
curse upon the elder. To Francisco he immediately 
bequeaths his wealth to assure acceptability with 
Jacinta's father; and forthwith Ramyres politicly 
dies that the inheritance may take effect. The elder 
son hears that his father has been privately entombed 
within a convent, but that before his death he so far 
relented as to send his blessing to his sometime heir. 
Meanwhile, Don Carlos, the father of Jacinta, has 
cast out Felisarda from his household, and has ar- 
ranged to marry Jacinta to a wealthy and high-born 
libertine, Don Pedro. As Felisarda is returning to 
her father's house, she is waylaid by Don Pedro, and 
from him is rescued only by the timely appearance 
of Fernando. Despite Fernando's penniless condi- 
tion, Felisarda would gladly marry him; but he is 
unwilling to accept such a sacrifice— to betray her to 
greater poverty. As for Jacinta, the heiress, who is 
being forced into marriage with Don Pedro, she 
elopes with Francisco on her wedding morn; and, 
when her father learns of the true character of Don 
Pedro and of the inheritance of Francisco, he is easily 
reconciled to the elopement. Then, from the con- 
cealment in the convent, appears the politic father, 
Don Ramyres. By his pretended death, he has se- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

cured the marriage of Francisco to the heiress, and 
has tested ^'Fernando's piety and his mistress' virtue." 
He restores his elder son to fortune, and marries him 
to Felisarda. 

Around this major plot are grouped several inter- 
esting lesser characters and actions. There is the 
grasping Carlos, father of Jacinta, who forbids the 
attendance of the younger brother for his lack of for- 
tune, but who welcomes successively the suit of 
Alberto, of Fernando, and of Don Pedro, each 
wealthier than his predecessor. There is the engag- 
ing and irrepressible young scapegrace, Luys, Ja- 
cinta's brother, who, in return for commending them 
to his sister, borrows money from her suitors, and 
who finally secures uncounted money from his father 
on pretext that he has slain Alberto and must flee the 
country. There is the device by which Jacinta, with 
the connivance of the noble widow Estef ania, escapes 
from Don Pedro on her wedding morn — a device not 
unlike that by which Violetta in The Witty Fair 
One, with the connivance of her maid, escapes from 
marriage with Sir Nicholas. And, finally, there is 
the high-born libertine Don Pedro, who makes love, 
more or less honorable, to Jacinta, to Felisarda, and 
to Estefania, only to find at the last that Jacinta is 
married to Francisco, that Felisarda is safely affi- 

D38] 



THE POLITIQUE FATHER (THE BROTHERS) 

anced to Fernando, and that Estefania is wedded to 
Alberto. 

Although The Politique Father {The Brothers of 
1652) is primarily a comedy of London life and man- 
ners, thinly disguised with Spanish names and set- 
ting, yet it differs materially from the well-nigh 
Middletonian realism of Shirley's other late realistic 
comedy. The Constant Maid. This difference results 
largely from the almost romantic treatment of the 
fortunes of the lovers in the major plot, and from the 
poetic quality of many passages in its more important 
scenes. Of this romantic treatment and poetic qual- 
ity, the following extracts from the conclusion of 
Act IV, scene v, shall be example. It is the parting 
of Fernando and Felisarda: 

Fel. Shall I want fortitude to bid him welcome?— 
Sir, If you think there is a heart alive 
That can be grateful, and with humble thought 
And prayers reward your piety, despise not 
The offer of it here. You have not cast 
Your bounty on a rock, while the seeds thrive 
Where you did place your charity. My joy : 

May seem ill dress'd to come like sorrow thus ; 
But you may see through every tear, and find 
My eyes meant innocence and your hearty welcome. 

Fer. Who did prepare thee, Felisarda, thus 
To entertain me weeping? Sure our souls 
Meet and converse, and we not know't. There is 

D39:] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Such beauty in that watery circle, I 

Am fearful to come near, and breathe a kiss 

Upon thy cheek, lest I pollute that crystal. 

And yet I must salute thee ; and I dare, 

With one warm sigh, meet and dry up this sorrow 

But first, I have a story to deliver, 

A tale will make thee sad, but I must tell it : 

There is one dead that loved thee not, . . . my 

father, . . . 
Alas ! I am no more Fernando ; there 
Is nothing but the empty name of him 
That did betray thee. Place a guard about 
Thy heart betime; I am not worth this sweetness. 

Fel. Did not Fernando speak all this? alas, 
He knew that I was poor before, and needed not 
Despise me now for that. 

Fer. Desert me, goodness. 

When I upbraid thy wants. 'Tis I am poor ; 
For I have not a stock in all the world 
Of so much dust as would contrive one narrow 
Cabin to shroud a worm. My dying father 
Hath given away my birthright to Francisco ; 
I'm disinherited, .thrown out of all, 
But the small earth I borrow thus to walk on ; 
And, having nothing left, I come to kiss thee. 
And take my everlasting leave of thee. . . . 

Fel. 'Tis . . . wealth first taught us art to 
surfeit by : 
Nature is wise, not costly, and will spread 

D40] 



THE POLITIQUE FATHER (THE BROTHERS) 

A table for us In the wilderness ; 

And the kind earth keep us alive and healthful, 

With what our bosom doth invite us to. 

The brooks, not there suspected, as the wine 

That sometime princes quaff, are all transparent. 

And with their pretty murmurs call to taste them. 

In every tree a chorister to sing 

Health to our loves ; our lives shall there be free 

As the first knowledge was from sin, and all 

Our dreams as innocent. 

Fer. Oh, Felisarda I 

If thou didst own less virtue I might prove 
Unkind, and marry thee ; but being so rich 
In goodness, it becomes me not to bring 
One that is poor in every worth, to waste 
So excellent a dower. Be free, and meet 
One that hath wealth to cherish it ; I shall 
Undo thee quite. But pray for me, as I, 
That thou mayst change for a more happy bridegroom. 
I dare as soon be guilty of my death 
As make thee miserable by expecting me. 
Farewell ! and do not wrong my soul, to think 
That any storm could separate us two. 
But that I have no fortune now to serve thee. 

Fel. This will be no exception, sir, I hope. 
When we are both dead, yet our bodies may 
Be cold, and strangers in the winding sheet. 
We shall be married when our spirits meet. [Exeunt. y 

■^ The Brothers, iv, v; Works, i, 248-252. 

1:340 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Of this poetic element in The Brothers of 1652, an- 
other familiar example is the passage quoted by 
Farmer in his Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare, 
1766, the description of the maid at prayers.^ 

Of the three plays considered in this chapter, two 
— The Doubtful Heir and The Imposture — are to be 
ranked among Shirley's most successful contributions 
to the romantic school. In neither is the character- 
ization notable— nor is this to be expected in plays 
following so closely in the romantic, as distinguished 
from the realistic, style of Fletcher. But The Impos- 
ture is delightful for skilful intrigue and romantic 
atmosphere; and The Doubtful Heir, passionate, 
swift, astounding in surprise upon surprise, is a 
Fletcherian dramatic romance of highest quality. 
The Brothers of 1652, which we have identified with 
the play licensed as The Politique Father, 1641, is a 
comedy of manners of but minor interest — whether 
we compare it with the romantic plays which are its 

^ "Her eye did seem to labour with a tear 
Which suddenly took birth, but, overweigh'd 
With its own swelling, dropp'd upon her bosom, 
Which, by reflection of her light, appear'd 
As nature meant her sorrow for an ornament. 
After, her looks grew cheerful; and I saw 
A smile shoot graceful upward from her eyes. 
As if they had gain'd a victory o'er grief ; 
And with it many beams twisted themselves. 
Upon whose golden threads the angels walk 
To and again from heaven." 

The Brothers, I, i; Works, I, 202. 

[342] 



THE POLITIQUE FATHER (THE BROTHERS) 

nearest neighbors, or with the realistic plays of Shir- 
ley's first and second periods. Even The Brothers, 
however, contains much pleasing verse. It is the 
poetical element that links this play not only with 
The Doubtful Heir and The Imposture, but also 
with the three plays still to be discussed. 



[343 3 



CHAPTER XVII 
THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONTINUED 

THE CARDINAL 

FOREMOST among the later plays of Shir- 
ley, and among the greatest that Shirley 
ever wrote, is The Cardinal, licensed No- 
vember 25, 1 64 1. In plot, this romantic tragedy is 
a struggle between the duchess Rosaura on the one 
hand and the cardinal on the other: the duchess be- 
ing supported by a colonel named Hernando, and the 
cardinal being in alliance with his nephew Don 
Columbo. Opening in a struggle concerning the 
marriage of the duchess, the play concludes as a 
struggle for revenge. 

The cardinal, for the strengthening of his own 
power, has persuaded the king to bestow the hand 
of the duchess upon Don Columbo. While Columbo 
is absent defending the kingdom against Arragon, 
the duchess writes him, demanding her release. Co- 
lumbo, supposing it but a hint to hasten home, gives 
her her freedom. The duchess shows his letter to the 
king; and, on the strength of it, she secures the king's 
assent to her marriage with her long-time lover. 
Count d'Alvarez. Columbo returns upon their wed- 

D443 



THE CARDINAL 

ding night, stabs with his own hand Count d' Alvarez, 
and stays to justify his crime. His victory over Arra- 
gon pleads in his behalf; and this, by the cardinal's 
influence, wipes out all memory of the assassination. 
Columbo forces himself upon the duchess, and vows 
that, should she ever think to wed again, he will slay 
the next bridegroom as he has the last. 

With this, the duchess accepts as her champion one 
Hernando, a colonel who has also personal grounds' 
for hating both Columbo and the cardinal. In the 
duel that follows, Hernando slays Columbo. The 
duchess, meanwhile, seemingly insane, is made the 
cardinal's ward. He resolves to take revenge upon 
her by violating and then poisoning her. When, 
however, he attempts assault upon her, Hernando, 
concealed behind the arras, rushes to her rescue, stabs 
the cardinal, and then stabs himself and dies. To the 
king and court, the wounded cardinal confesses his 
treachery; and, in token of his penitence, he begs the 
duchess to accept an antidote for a poison which, he 
alleges, he administered to her at supper. In token 
of his good faith, he takes a portion of the antidote 
before her. She drinks, and finds it poison. He 
rejoices in the success of his deceit— and then learns 
that his own wound was not mortal. The cardinal 
and the duchess die together. Both have their re- 
venge. 

1:345 J 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Upon and around this central story, Shirley has 
grouped a succession of strong and brilliant scenes. 
The departure of Columbo and the immediate meet- 
ing of d' Alvarez and the duchess;^ the council of 
war, with Columbo's quarrel with Hernando, his 
receipt of the duchess's letter, and his answer;^ her 
successful appeal to the king and resulting quarrel 
with the cardinal;^ the celebration of the duchess's 
wedding to d' Alvarez, the ^'revels" by the unknown 
maskers, their murder of d'Alvarez, the unmasking 
of Columbo, his bold confession and defiance, and 
the duchess's cry for justice;* her subsequent meet- 
ings with Columbo, with Hernando, and with the 
cardinal ; ^ the duel between Hernando and Columbo 
with their respective seconds, from which Hernando 
is the sole survivor; ^ the visit of Hernando and of the 
cardinal to the supposedly insane duchess, and the 
resulting deaths of all three i"^ all these scenes tell 
swiftly and vividly the story from which the remain- 
ing scenes — such as the comic episode of the servants 
dressing for the play, and the hinted amours of Co- 
lumbo and Celinda— are but slight digressions. As 
a combination of emotional unity in each individual 
scene with intellectual unity in the play taken as a 

1 The Cardinah I, ii. ^ Ibid., iv, ii. 

2 Ibid., II, i. ^ Ibid., iv, iii. 
^ Ibid., II, iii. ^ Ibid., V, iii. 
* Ibid., Ill, ii. 

C346:] 



THE CARDINAL 

whole, The Cardinal stands first among Shirley's 
tragedies. 

The Cardinal is notable, however, not solely for 
management of plot and for the high effectiveness of 
particular scenes ; it is notable also for the interest of 
its characters. The duchess, Columbo, Hernando, 
and the cardinal : each is a powerful personality, pow- 
erfully conceived ; each different from the others, and 
each finely delineated. 

Most difficult of delineation was the character of 
the duchess Rosaura. Her, Shirley must present as 
guilty of the initial overt act that divorced her from 
her affianced lover, married her to that lover's rival, 
and led on to the assassination of d' Alvarez, the death 
of Columbo and two others in the resulting duel, the 
suicide of Hernando, and the death by poison of the 
cardinal and herself; and yet Shirley must so present 
the duchess that, from first to last, our sympathy shall 
be with her — the all but helpless soul struggling for 
life amid the cardinal's toils. This sympathy, Shir- 
ley skilfully builds up from scene to scene : he shows 
us how the anger of the lords runs high against the 
cardinal ; how the love of the duchess for d'Alvarez 
antedated her forced alliance with the cardinal's 
nephew, Don Columbo; how, against the united 
power of the mighty general, the mightier cardinal, 
and the pliant king, naught could avail the duchess 

[347] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

but a woman's stratagem ; how, widowed on her wed- 
ding night, she cried in vain for justice against the 
murderer of her lord; how Columbo, more firm than 
ever in the king's support, drove her, by his threats, 
to desperation, and forced upon her, not for revenge 
or justice only, but even for self-preservation, her 
alliance with Hernando for the death of Columbo 
and the cardinal. Perhaps the finest touch— coming as 
it does between the death of Columbo in the duel and 
that of the cardinal by his own poison— is the scene in 
which the duchess, seemingly insane, receives her 
champion, Hernando : 

Hernando. Dear madam, do not weep. 

Duchess. YouVe very welcome. 

I have done. I will not shed a tear more 
Till I meet Alvarez ; then Til weep for joy. 
He was a fine young gentleman, and sung sweetly. 
An you had heard him but the night before 
We were married, you would have sworn he had been 
A swan, and sung his own sad epitaph. 
But we'll talk of the. Cardinal. 

Her. Would his death 

Might ransom your fair sense ! he should not live 
To triumph in the loss. Beshrew my manhood, 
But I begin to melt. 

DuCH. I pray, sir, tell me. 

For I can understand, although they say 
I have lost my wits ; but they are safe enough, 

1:3483 



THE CARDINAL 

And I shall have them when the Cardinal dies ; 
Who had a letter from his nephew, too, 
Since he was slain. 

Her. From whence? 

DucH. I do not know where he is. But in some 
bower 
Within a garden he is making chaplets. 
And means to send me one. But I '11 not take it. 
I have flowers enough, I thank him, while I live. 

Her. But do you love your governor? 

DucH. Yes, but I'll never marry him; I am promis'd 
Already. 

Her. To whom, madam? 

DucH. Do not you 

Blush when you ask me that ? Must not you be 
My husband? I know why, but that's a secret. 
Indeed, if you believe me, I do love 
No man alive so well as you. The Cardinal 
Shall never know't ; he'll kill us both ; and yet 
He says he loves me dearly, and has promis'd 
To make me well again; but I'm afraid. 
One time or other, he will give me poison. 

Her. Prevent him, madam, and take nothing from 
him. 

DuCH. Why, do you think 'twill hurt me ? 

Her. It will kill you. 

DucH. I shall but die, and meet my dear-loved lord. 
Whom, when I have kiss'd, I'll come again and work 
A bracelet of my hair for you to carry him. 
When you are going to heaven. The poesy shall 

[349:] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Be my own name, in little tears that I 

Will weep next winter, which, congeal'd i' the frost, 

Will show like seed-pearl. You'll deliver it? 

I know he'll love and wear it for my sake. 

Her. She is quite lost. 

DuCH. Pray give me, sir, your pardon; 

I know I talk not wisely; but if you had 
The burthen of my sorrow, you would miss 
Sometimes your better reason. Now I'm well. 
What will you do when the Cardinal comes ? 
He must not see you for the world. 

Her. He shall not; 

I'll take my leave before he comes. 

DucH. Nay, stay; 

I shall have no friend left me when you go. 
He will but sup ; he shall not stay to lie with me ; 
I have the picture of my lord abed; 
Three are too much this weather. 

Enter Placentia. 

Pla. Madam, the Cardinal. 

Her. He shall sup with the devil. 
DuCH. I dare not stay; 

The red cock will be angry. I'll come again.^ 

By such devices as this does Shirley maintain our 
sympathy for the duchess Rosaura; but, besides pic- 
turing a character that holds our sympathy, he has 
here— contrary to his custom— pictured a character 
that grovv^s. From a timorous maiden, hiding her 

* The Cardinal, v, fii; Works, V, 341-343. 

1:3503 



THE CARDINAL 

heart from Columbo and the world, she becomes first 
the woman that dares demand her freedom, appeal to 
the king, and hurl defiance at the cardinal, and then, 
widowed of d' Alvarez and crushed beneath the 
threefold power, the woman that dares to draw Her- 
nando to her aid against Columbo and, by feigned 
insanity, so to entrap the cardinal that she may '^be 
Alvarez' justicer." 

Strongly contrasted with the intriguing duchess on 
the one hand and with the intriguing cardinal on the 
other are the two bold, outspoken soldiers, Hernando 
and Columbo— the former calmly, the latter passion- 
ately brave. In Columbo, Shirley has depicted a 
commander that makes his very impetuosity a means 
to victory, and that thinks to take a wife as he would 
take a town— by storm. That the vanquished have 
rights, he cannot comprehend; nor can he compre- 
hend the fine nobility of Count d'Alvarez. Against 
a valiant swordsman, he scorns a base advantage ; yet 
he is on the point of resenting the message of the 
duchess by slaying the duchess's messenger, and he 
vents his rage upon the duchess with the same brutal- 
ity as his revenge upon d'Alvarez. He is perhaps 
most nearly magnificent in the scene of the assassina- 
tion at the wedding, when he stays to justify his deed ; 
yet more characteristic is his subsequent visit to the 
duchess : 

D50 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Placentia. Madam, here's Don Columbo says he 

must 
Speak with your grace. 

Duchess. But he must not, I charge you. 

None else wait? Is this well done, 
To triumph in his tyranny? . . . 

Antonio. Sir, you must not see her. 

Columbo. Not see her? Were she cabled up above 
The search of bullet or of fire, were she 
Within her grave, and that the toughest mine 
That ever nature teem'd and groan'd withal, 
I would force some way to see her. — Do not fear 
I come to court your madam ; you are not worth 
The humblest of my kinder thoughts. I come 
To show the man you have provokM, and lost. 
And tell you what remains of my revenge. 
Live, but never presume again to marry. 
I'll kill the next at the altar, and quench all 
The smiling tapers with his blood. If after. 
You dare provoke the priest and heaven so much, 
To take another, in thy bed I'll cut him from 
Thy warm embrace, and throw his heart to ravens. 

Celinda. This will appear an unexampled cruelty. 

Columbo. Your pardon, madam ; rage and my 
revenge 
Not perfect took away my eyes. You are 
A noble lady; this not worth your eye-beam. 
One of so slight a making and so thin 
An autumn leaf is of too great a value 
To play which shall be soonest lost i' the air. 



THE CARDINAL 

Be pleased to own me by some name, in your 
Assurance ; I despise to be receiv'd 
There. Let her witness that I call you mistress ; 
Honour me to make these pearls your carkanet.^ 

Against this valiant brutality of Columbo, Shirley 
paints the valiant nobility of Hernando. He pic- 
tures Hernando's wisdom at the council-board, his 
self-control in the face of Columbo's accusation, his 
brave devotion to the dead d'Alvarez and to the liv- 
ing duchess, his victory in the duel, his rescue of the 
duchess from the cardinal, and his self-inflicted 
death. Any of these scenes would be worth quoting; 
but, for the sake of illustrating at once the directness 
of Hernando and the indirection — or, perhaps, the 
crescent bravery — of the duchess, I select his meeting 
with her after d'Alvarez' death : 

Hernando. I know not how your grace will 
censure so 
Much boldness, when you know the affairs I come for. 

Duchess. My servant has preparM me to receive it, 
If it concern my dead lord. 

Her. Can you name 

So much of your Alvarez in a breath. 
Without one word of your revenge? O, madam, 
I come to chide you, and repent my great 
Opinion of your virtue, that can walk, 

® The Cardinal, IV, ii; Works, V, 320-321. 

D53 3 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

And spend so many hours in naked solitude ; 

As if you thought that no arrears were due 

To his death, when you had paid his funeral charges, 

Made your eyes red, and wet a handkerchief. 

I come to tell you that I saw him bleed ; 

I, that can challenge nothing in his name 

And honour, saw his murdered body warm, 

And panting with the labour of his spirits, 

Till my amazed soul shrunk and hid itself : 

While barbarous Columbo grinning stood. 

And mock'd the weeping wounds. It is too much 

That you should keep your heart alive so long 

After this spectacle, and not revenge it. 

DucH. You do not know the business of my heart, 
That censure me so rashly; yet I thank you: 
And, if you be Alvarez' friend, dare tell 
Your confidence, that I despise my life. 
But know not how to use it in a service. 
To speak me his revenger. This will need 
No other proof than that to you, who may 
Be sent with cunning to betray me, I 
Have made this bold confession. I so much 
Desire to sacrifice to that hovering ghost 
Colombo's life, that I am not ambitious 
To keep my own two minutes after it. 

Her. If you will call me coward, which Is equal 
To think I am a traitor, I forgive it. 
For this brave resolution, which time 
And all the destinies must aid. I beg 
That I may kiss your hand for this ; and may 
The soul of angry honour guide it — 

1:354: 



THE CARDINAL 

DucH. Whither? 

Her. To Don Columbo's heart. 

DucH. It is too weak, I fear, alone. 

Her. Alone ? Are you in earnest ? Why, will it not 
Be a dishonour to your justice, madam. 
Another arm should interpose ? But that 
It were a saucy act to mingle with you, 
I durst, nay, I am bound in the revenge 
Of him that's dead, (since the whole world has Interest 
In every good man's loss,) to offer it: 
Dare you command me, madam? 

DucH. Not command; 

But I should more than honour such a truth 
In man, that durst, against so mighty odds. 
Appear Alvarez' friend and mine. The Cardinal — 

Her. Is for the second course ; Columbo must 
Be first cut up ; his ghost must lead the dance : 
Let him die first. 

DucH. But how? 

Her. How! with a sword; and, if I undertake it, 
I will not lose so much of my own honour, 
To kill him basely. 

DucH. How shall I reward 

This infinite service ? 'Tis not modesty. 
While now my husband groans beneath his tomb. 
And calls me to his marble bed, to promise 
What this great act might well deserve, myself, 
If you survive the victor. But if thus 
Alvarez' ashes be appeas'd, it must 
Deserve an honourable memory; 
And though Columbo (as he had all power, 

1:3553 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

And grasp'd the fates) has vowed to kill the man 
That shall succeed Alvarez — 

Her. Tyranny ! 

DuCH. Yet, If ever 

I entertain a thought of love hereafter, 
Hernando from the world shall challenge it ; 
Till when, my prayers and fortune shall wait on you. 

Her. This is too mighty recompense. 

DucH. 'Tis all just. 

Her. If I outlive Columbo, I must not 
Expect security at home. 

DucH. Thou canst 

Not fly where all my fortunes and my love 
Shall not attend to guard thee. 

Her. If I die- 

DuCH. Thy memory 

Shall have a shrine, the next within my heart 
To my Alvarez. 

Her. Once again your hand. 

Your cause Is so religious you need not 
Strengthen It with your prayers ; trust It to me. 

Placentia. Madam, the Cardinal. 

DucH. Will you appear? 

Her. An he had all the horror of the devil 
In's face, I would not baulk him.^^ 

Last comes the cardinal ; a subtle statesman subtly 
draw^n. Shirley shoves us but little of his doings : his 
means we know^ not; but we feel his might. How the 

^® The Cardinal, IV, ii; Works, v, 322-325. 



THE CARDINAL 

cardinal forced the betrothal of the duchess to his 
nephew, and how, after the bold assassination, he se- 
cured that nephew's pardon — or, better still, release 
without a pardon — we are not told; we know only 
that the thing is done ; we marvel and we fear. And 
just as Shirley makes us feel the cardinal's power 
without letting us behold its operation, so Shirley 
makes us feel the cardinal's wickedness almost with- 
out specific crime. With the exception of that por- 
tion of the final scene in which the cardinal endeavors 
to betray the duchess, he is ever the reverend church- 
man, full of regret at the evil he beholds. His hypo- 
critical remorse before his death is typical of his life; 
his needless self-destruction, a dramatic master-stroke 
of irony: 

Cardinal. I have deserv'd you should turn from me, 
sir: 
My life hath been prodigiously wicked ; 
My blood Is now the kingdom's balm. Oh, sir, 
I have abus'd your ear, your trust, your people, 
And my own sacred office ; my conscience 
Feels now the sting. Oh, shew your charity 
And with your pardon, like a cool soft gale. 
Fan my poor sweating soul, that wanders through 
Unhabitable climes and parched deserts. — 
But I am lost, If the great world forgive me, 
Unless I find your mercy for a crime 
You know not, madam, yet, against your life, 

[357] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

I must confess, more than my black intents 
Upon your honour; you're already poisoned. 

King. By whom ? 

Car. By me, 

In the revenge I ow'd Columbo's loss ; 
With your last meat was mix'd a poison, that 
By subtle and by sure degrees must let 
In death. 

King. Look to the duchess, our physicians ! 

Car. Stay. 

I will deserve her mercy, though I cannot 
Call back the deed. In proof of my repentance, 
If the last breath of a now dying man 
May gain your charity and belief, receive 
This ivory box ; in it an antidote 
'Bove that they boast the great magistral medicine : 
That powder, mix'd with wine, by a most rare 
And quick access to the heart, will fortify it 
Against the rage of the most nimble poison. 
I am not worthy to present her with it. 
Oh, take it, and preserve her innocent life. 

I Lord. Strange, he should have a good thing in such 
readiness. 

Car. 'Tis that which in my jealousy and state. 
Trusting to false predictions of my birth. 
That I should die by poison, I preserv'd 
For my own safety. Wonder not, I made 
That my companion was to be my refuge. 

Enter Servant, with a bowl of wine, 

I Lord. Here is some touch of grace. 

1:3583 



THE CARDINAL 

Car. In greater proof of my pure thoughts, I take 
This first, and with my dying breath confirm 
My penitence ; it may benefit her life, 
But not my wounds. Oh, hasten to preserve her ; 
And though I merit not her pardon, let not 
Her fair soul be divorced. 

The Duchess takes the howl and drinks. 

King. This is some charity; may it prosper, madam I 

Valeria. How does your grace? 

DucH. And I must owe my life to him whose death 
Was my ambition? Take this free acknowledgment; 
I had intent, this night, with my own hand 
To be Alvarez' justicer. 

King. You were mad. 

And thought past apprehension of revenge. 

DucH. That shape I did usurp, great sir, to give 
My art more freedom and defence ; but when 
Hernando came to visit me, I thought 
I might defer my execution; 
Which his own rage supplied without my guilt. 
And, when his lust grew high, met with his blood. 

I Lord. The Cardinal smiles. 

Car. Now my revenge has met 

With you, my nimble duchess I I have took 
A shape to give my act more freedom too. 
And now I am sure she's poison'd with that dose 
I gave her last. 

King. Thou'rt not so horrid ! 

DucH. Ha ! some cordial. 

Car. Alas, no preservative 

D59n 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Hath wings to overtake it. Were her heart 
Lock'd in a quarry, it would search, and kill 
Before the aids can reach it. I am sure 
You shall not now laugh at me. 

King. How came you by that poison? 

Car. I prepared it. 

Resolving, when I had enjoy'd her, which 
The colonel prevented, by some art 
To make her take it, and by death conclude 
My last revenge. You have the fatal story. 

King. This is so great a wickedness, it will 
Exceed belief. 

Car. I knew I could not live. 

Surg. Your wounds, sir, were not desperate. 

Car. Not mortal? Ha! Were they not mortal ? 

Surg. If I have skill in surgery. 

Car. Then I have caught myself in my own engine. 

2 Lord. It was your fate, you said, to die by poison. 

Car. That was my own prediction, to abuse 
Your faith ; no human art can now resist it ; 
I feel it knocking at the seat of life; 
It must come in; I have wreck'd all my own. 
To try your charities : now it would be rare, — 
If you but waft me with a little prayer ; 
My wings that flag may catch the wind; but 'tis 
In vain; the mist is risen, and there's none 
To steer my wand' ring bark.^^ 

In the creation and delineation of character, as in 
the mastery of plot and scene, w^e have found reason 

11 The Cardinal, V, iii; Works, V, 348-351. 

[360;] 



THE CARDINAL 

highly to commend the work of Shirley in The Car- 
dinal. Were we likewise to discuss its language— its 
poetic form — we might add a commendation more; 
indeed, the frequent beauty of its verse must be al- 
ready evident from incidental illustration. To say 
all this of a play that attempted, in the year 1641, to 
present once more the Websterian round of revenge, 
depravity, and rape, is no small praise. Shirley was 
correct in his opinion that this play might "rival with 
his best." ^^ Save for his own modesty, he might have 
added that, even when measured with the best work 
of his contemporaries, Shirley's The Cardinal must 
be accounted a notable romantic tragedy. 

^2 Prologue to The Cardinal; Works, v, 275. 



1:3613 



CHAPTER XVIII 

THE THIRD DRAMATIC PERIOD-CONCLUDED 

THE SISTERS AND THE COURT SECRET 

IN our series of eleven plays surviving from Shir- 
ley's third, and final, period, we come now to 
the last two of his productions: The Sisters and 
The Court Secret. These two plays— like his other 
dramas of this period, with the exception of The 
Politique Father and The Constant Maid — belong 
not to the realistic but to the romantic school. 
Neither play is a notable achievement; but each is 
thoroughly entertaining, and both are representative 
of the style of play that Shirley himself seems most 
to have enjoyed. 

Last of the plays of Shirley to be acted on the stage, 
The Sisters, licensed April 26, 1642, is a gay mixture 
of romantic comedy and farce. Three stories mingle 
in its plot: the fortunes of a proud sister and a hum- 
ble sister, of whom each comes to her reward; the 
amusing rogueries of a bandit chief, trapped at last 
in his own net; and the familiar but pretty romance 
of the maiden-page, who, sent a-wooing by the man 
she loves, becomes the object of his mistress's passion. 



THE SISTERS 

Rarely in the minor Elizabethan drama are three 
actions more effectively combined: each part seems 
absolutely essential to the others. No criticism appar- 
ently could be less apt than that of Ward, that The 
Sisters seems "rather hastily put together";^ or than 
the similar remark of Dibdin that the play "is not 
well hung together."^ Slight in substance, The Sis- 
ters is excellent in matters of technique, and especially 
in this matter of structural unity. 

In the dominions of Farnese, Prince of Parma, 
dwell two noble sisters, Paulina and Angellina. The 
former, extravagant and insolently proud, drives to 
despair Antonio, their uncle. The latter, modest, 
gentle, and destined for a nunnery, he finds as diffi- 
cult to convert to worldliness as her sister to true 
gentlehood. Paulina is resolved to wed no less a hus- 
band than the Prince of Parma; and in this ambition 
she is confirmed by the prophecy of a band of wander- 
ing astrologers. These astrologers, who in reality are 
Frapolo and his banditti in disguise, return presently 
to Paulina's castle, impersonating now the Prince of 
Parma and his train. Paulina, completely deceived, 
accepts Frapolo as her husband, and prepares to de- 
part with him to court, with all her plate and jewels. 

Meanwhile, however, the true Prince of Parma 

^ Ward, English Dramatic Literature, III, Ii8. 
2 Dibdin, A Complete History of the Stage, iv, 44. 

[363^ 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

has arrived, brought partly by a desire to behold 
Paulina in her pride, partly to win Angellina for his 
follower. Lord Contarini. At sight of Angellina, the 
prince falls in love with her himself, and, forgetful 
of his follower, becomes her suitor. She answers that 
she has already bestowed her heart upon Lord Con- 
tarini's page, Vergerio. Her avowal and the result- 
ing discomfiture of prince and lord bring forth a 
revelation : Vergerio the page is Pulcheria, daughter 
of the Viceroy of Sicily and Lord Contarini's former 
mistress, whom he believed to be dead. Lord Con- 
tarini turns promptly to his regained Pulcheria; and 
as Pulcheria, unlike Shakspere's Viola, can supply no 
brother Sebastian in her stead, the loving Angellina 
makes shift to accept the hand and scepter of the 
Prince of Parma. 

It remains, however, to unmask the bandit chief- 
tain Frapolo at Paulina's castle ; and so Farnese con- 
fronts his counterfeit. At first, Frapolo boldly plays 
the prince; but finding himself detected and escape 
cut off, he confesses the deception. The pride of 
Paulina takes a mighty tumble; but the worst— or 
best — is yet to come : her nurse— supposing that Paul- 
ina is about to be married to the real Farnese— 
reveals the fact that Paulina is but a supposititious 
child, own daughter to the nurse. The blunt old 
uncle voices the sentiments of all: "Why, there's a 

n364: 



THE SISTERS 

baggage and a thief well met then!"^ The haughty 
sister is married to the bandit chief ; the gentle sister 
to the Prince of Parma. 

As compared with his mastery of plot, Shirley's 
mastery of characterization in The Sisters is less con- 
spicuous : as so often happens in these romantic plays, 
the character-drawing is adequate rather than re- 
markable. And yet, even in this character-drawing, 
the work of Shirley in The Sisters is far from com- 
monplace. Antonio, the ''old, blunt, brave" uncle of 
the pair ; the two sisters, admirably contrasted ; Fra- 
polo, the magnetic and audacious bandit; and, most 
entertaining of all, the credulous, cowardly, unfilial 
Piperollo: all these are not only clearly delineated 
but capitally conceived. Of Shirley's power both of 
conception and delineation of character, the opening 
scene, in which Frapolo rallies his frightened follow- 
ers, is an excellent example ; but an even better exam- 
ple is the scene in which Frapolo, at the very end, 
attempts for a moment to outface the true Prince of 
Parma and his following: 

Frapolo. Can you stand 
The dazzling sun so long, and be not struck 
Blind for this bold affront? What wlldness brought you, 
In multitudes, to fright my happy peace. 
And this good lady's, my most virtuous consort? 

^ The Sisters, v, ii; Works, v, 422. 

1:3651 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Longing. He bears up still ! [Aside,] 

Frap. Have all my cares and watchlngs to preserve 
Your lives and dearest liberties deserv'd 
This strange return, and at a time when most 
Your happiness is concem'd? since, by our marriage 
With this sweet lady, full of grace and beauty. 
You may expect an heir to bless your country. 

Cgntarini. Will you suffer him? 

Frap. *Tis time your prince were dead ; and when 
I am 
Companion to my father's dust, these tumults, 
Fomented by seditious men, that are 
Weary of plenty and delights of peace. 
Shall not approach to interrupt the calm 
Good princes after death enjoy. Go home, 
I pray; depart: I rather will submit 
To be deposed, than wear a power or title 
That shall not all be dedicate to serve you. 
My life is but the gift of Heaven, to waste it 
For your dear sakes. My people are my children, 
Whom I am bound in nature and religion 
To cherish and protect. Perhaps you have 
Some grievance to present. You shall have justice 
Against the proudest here : I look not on 
Nobility of birth, office, or fortunes ; 
The poorest subject has a native charter. 
And a birthright to the laws and commonwealth, 
Which, with an equal and impartial stream. 
Shall flow to every bosom. 

Strgzzg. Pious Prince ! 

t3663 



THE SISTERS 

Farnese. I am at a loss to hear him. Sure I am 
Farnese, if I be not lost by the way. 

PiPEROLLO. Stand off, gentlemen,— let me see— 
which? Hum! this? — no; th'other? Hum! send for a 
lion, and turn him loose; he will not hurt the true prince. 

Farn. Do not you know me, sir? 

Frap. Yes, I know you too well; but it stands not 
with my honour. What composition? 

Farn. Who am I?— Gentlemen, how dare you suffer 
This thing to talk, if I be your Farnese? 

Frap. I say I am the prince. 

Farn. Prince of what? 

Frap. Of rogues, an please your excellence.* 

This passage shows something of Shirley's power 
both for the conception and for the delineation of 
comic character; yet even more delicious for char- 
acter and for action are the two scenes in which Fra- 
polo and his banditti as astrologers prophesy that 
Lucio and PiperoUo shall be robbed, and then, in 
their own persons, carry out the prophecy. In the 
first of these scenes, two of the banditti have prophe- 
sied that the steward, Lucio, shall be made a lord, 
and that Piperollo his servant shall become a knight. 
At that moment, Frapolo enters ; and to him the stew- 
ard and the knave appeal for a verification of their 
respective fortunes : 

* The Sisters, V, ii; Works, v, 420-421. 

1:3673 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Lucio. sir, if you please, till my lady return, to sat- 
isfy her steward and oblige him by your art — one of your 
under mathematics has given me a comfortable destiny. 

Frapolo. Your hand. Where were you born? 

Luc. I know not, sir. 

Rancone. a lord— [Ran. '!x;^f5/)^r5 Frap.] 

Frap. No matter; Venus, in the ascendant with Sol, 
being lady of your seventh — hum ! hum ! with Jupiter, de- 
signs you to be a lord. 

Luc. They all agree; the miracle of learning! — One 
question more, I beseech you, sir. I am to ride with my 
man to receive my lady's rent to-morrow, through the 
forest. 

Frap. Go to ! 

Luc. Now, I desire to know whether we shall be 
robb'd in our return, or no? 

Frap. What time do you think precisely to come 
back, sir? for we should know the very minute. 

Luc. The money Is ready, sir, and we do purpose- 
in your ear — 

Frap. Yes, you shall be robb'd; there's nothing In 
nature to prevent ft. 

PiPEROLLO. Will they kill us, an please you ? 

Frap. No, they shall not kill you ; they shall only take 
your money, and break your pate ; that will be all. 

PiPEROLLO. Why, let them rob us, sir; the loss of our 
money will be an evidence of our preferment, and you 
may have more assurance to be a lord, and I of my knight- 
hood.^ 

^ The Sisters, III, i; Works, V, 385-386. 

D68n 



THE SISTERS 

Accordingly, on the morning following, Lucio 
and PiperoUo, with their thousand pistoles of rent, 
pass through the forest; and PiperoUo, fearful lest 
they escape the attention of the outlaws, sets up such 
a whooping that Frapolo and his men imagine, for 
the moment, that some stratagem is to be played upon 
them : then they grasp the situation— and the victims : 

Strozzo. The gentleman is very merry. They that 
mean well, and have their wits about them, do not use to 
call upon our tribe. This is a plot, a very plot : and yet 
the coast is clear. . . . 'Tis my proud madam's steward 
and our quondam fellow thief; they were told their for- 
tunes to be robb'd. Here had been a purchase lost, if I 
had not lain perdu. — You shall be dispatch'd presently, 
never fear it. [He whistles.'} 

Luc. What's that? I do not like that tune. 

Pip. Hum ! I am not in love with that quail-pipe. I 
could dwindle, but that I have a strong faith in the mathe- 
matics. Thieves, an't be thy will ! 

Luc. If they should cut our throats now— this is your 
folly. Would I were off ! 

Pip. Would I were a knight in an embroidered dish- 
clout ! Have a good heart, sir; there's no more to be said 
in't; let the stars take their course; 'tis my lady's money; 
and if we be robb'd, we are so much the nearer to prefer- 
ment. 

Re-enter Frapolo and the rest, masked and disguised. 
Luc. Ah, sweet gentlemen, take but the money— 
Pip. 'Tis ready told; nay, nay, we are friends. Give 

D69n 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

us but a note under your hands for my lady's satisfaction, 
that you have received it, gentlemen. 

Luc. You need not trouble yourselves to tell it, gen- 
tlemen ; it is all right. 

LoNGiNO. So, so ! we'll take your words. 

Pip. I should know that vizard; the garments that 
you wear too I have seen. — Old acquaintance ! 

Frap. Does he know you? Cut his throat. 

Pip. No, sir, I do not know him, nor any man, nor 
myself; I was not once robbed before, neither did I help 
any man to rob my own father and mother ! I knew no 
cedar chest, I ; I disclaim it ; nor was any man that I knew 
left bound for the money. You are all honest gentlemen, 
and I congratulate our good fortune that you came so 
luckily in the very nick; we had carried home the money 
else in good sadness. — Sir, we are made for ever. — Rare 
mathematicians ! 

Frap. What's that you talk, sirrah, of mathemati- 
cians? 

Pip. It pleased some of the learned tribe to visit my 
lady not long sinCe ; but they are well, I hope ; they told 
us we should be robb'd and 'tis done ; blessed Chaldean ! 

Frap. What became of them? 

Pip. They 'scaped a scouring; for my lady's cynical 
uncle, in mere malice to learning, rais'd the clowns upon 
them, persuading the Hobbinols they came to rob the 
house ; but honoured be the stars ! they brought them off 
at the back gate. 

Frap. They seem honest fellows; let them live, and 
pass. 

[3703 



THE SISTERS 

Luc. We humbly thank you, gentlemen.— Come, 
Piperollo. 

Pip. And yet, now I remember, there wants a cir- 
cumstance. My pate is not broke yet; there was a clause. 
The Chaldean was a little out. 

Frap. I had forgot. [Aside.^—WiW you be prating, 
sirrah? \_He breaks his head.'\ 

Pip. Now 'tis done ; I thank you, dear gentlemen, I 
thank you ; go forth, and he a knight/ Mathematician, I 
adore thee. It bleeds. Where are you, sir? all is com- 
plete, and my head is broke, according to prophecy. Oh, 
admirable Chaldean !^ 

These extracts, introduced to show Shirley's mas- 
tery of characterization in the persons of Frapolo 
and Piperollo, illustrate even more his mastery of 
wholesome comedy. From the farce of the supposed 
astrologers picking pockets while they decipher 
palms, to the pure character-comedy of Piperollo, 
complaining because his head has not been broken, 
Shirley, in these and other scenes, justifies amply the 
remark of Swinburne that The Sisters is a "very spir- 
ited and amusing comedy."^ Professor Schelling, 
as if in echo of Dibdin and of Ward, speaks of the 
play as "hasty and unworthy." ^ That The Sisters is 

« The Sisters, IV, i; Works, v, 394-396. 

"^ A. C. Swinburne, "James Shirley," in The Fortnightly Review, 
Liii (n.s. XLvn), 476. 

® Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 11, 322. 

1:370 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

not Shirley's greatest comedy, we may readily con- 
cede ; but, this granted, I for one am still of the opin- 
ion that, both for its fun and for its romance. The 
Sisters is at once well done and genuinely delightful. 

Last of all the plays of Shirley is The Court Secret, 
2l dramatic romance, or, as the title-page calls it, "A 
Tragi-Comedy: Never Acted, But prepared for the 
Scene at Black- Friers."^ For romantic subject and 
for effectiveness of plot, this play is at once an appro- 
priate and a worthy conclusion to the long list of 
Shirley's dramas. 

Piracquo, a nobleman of Spain, has been forced in 
youth to play the pirate; but, having thus amassed 
great wealth and having long resided in high favor 
at the court of Portugal, he has been brought back 
from banishment by the Spanish prince Don Carlo, 
heir to the throne. With him has come Piracquo's 
son, Don Manuel, Prince Carlo's friend. The for- 
tunes of this Don Manuel form the subject of the 
play. 

On his arrival at the court of Spain, Don Manuel 
falls in love with Clara, daughter of Duke Mendoza. 
Clara returns his love, but various forces (as is neces- 
sary in dramatic romance) proceed to intervene. At 
the very outset, Maria the infanta falls in love with 

^ From the title-page of the copy of the 1653 edition in the posses- 
sion of the present writer. 

1:3723 



THE COURT SECRET 

Manuel— despite the fact that a marriage is pending 
between Maria and Antonio, the Prince of Portugal. 
In the second place, Maria's royal brother Carlo — 
although all but betrothed to the Portuguese princess 
Isabella, sister of Antonio— is madly in love with 
Mendoza's daughter Clara. Thus the love of Man- 
uel and Clara is from both sides royally assailed; 
Manuel must be rival to his patron. Prince Carlo; 
Clara to her bosom friend, Maria the infanta; and 
meanwhile, both Carlo and Maria are slighting the 
Portuguese alliance and the wishes of the king, their 
father. 

This complicated situation, Shirley indicates rap- 
idly and admirably in the opening scene; and even 
there he adds two further complications. The first 
of these is the interference of Roderigo, the king's 
brother: he reveals to the Prince of Portugal, An- 
tonio, the fact that Prince Carlo courts Clara instead 
of Isabella ; he makes Antonio suspicious of the rela- 
tions of Maria and Manuel; he arouses Carlo's anger 
at Manuel's alleged presumption in thus courting 
Carlo's sister; and he attempts to blackmail Manuel's 
father, Piracquo, by threatening to prevent the seal- 
ing of his pardon. The second outside complication, 
barely hinted in the opening scene but destined to 
prove of great importance, is the fact that one Pedro, 
who is at once a kinsman of Piracquo and a servant to 

13731 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Duke Mendoza, has possession of a certain secret. 
This secret appears to involve Mendoza in some 
long-hidden treason, and to concern the identity of 
Prince Carlo and our hero, Don Manuel. 

As a result of his ill-founded jealousy of Man- 
uel, Prince Antonio provokes him to a combat, and 
thus unintentionally occasions the imprisonment of 
Manuel. This imprisonment, in turn, brings about 
two meetings: one between Clara and Maria, the 
other between Manuel and Prince Carlo. The first 
reveals to Clara and the princess that they are rivals 
for the love of Manuel; and the second similarly 
reveals to Manuel and Prince Carlo that they are 
rivals for the love of Clara. Prince Carlo secures 
Don Manuel's release from prison and his reconcilia- 
tion with Prince Antonio. Manuel in turn, moved 
by Carlo's generosity, promises Carlo to set Clara 
free and leave her to choose between him and the 
prince. She accepts her liberty— and forthwith re- 
news her pledge to Manuel. Prince Carlo, vowing 
vengeance, secretly appoints a meeting with Don 
Manuel. Clara suspects; but Manuel assures her 
that the prince would never wound him basely and 
that nothing shall tempt him to lift sword against the 
prince. Repairing to the place appointed, Manuel 
hears loud cries for help: Prince Carlo's page runs 
toward him, declaring that a Moor has slain his mas- 

i:374l 



THE COURT SECRET 

ter and that the Moor pursues. Manuel, hastening 
to Carlo's rescue, meets the Moor; they fight; the 
Moor falls— and proves to be Prince Carlo in 
disguise. 

Meanwhile, the princess Isabella has arrived un- 
heralded from Portugal— and Prince Carlo is no- 
where to be found. The court is distracted at his 
untimely absence. His fate is announced in person by 
Don Manuel, himself the murderer! Duke Mendoza 
— even beyond Carlo's royal father — is clamorous 
for vengeance. Prince Antonio and Piracquo inter- 
vene: the former presents the testimony of the dying 
Carlo that Manuel fought believing himself the 
avenger of Carlo on the Moor; the latter declares 
that the man guilty of "the prince's loss" is not Don 
Manuel but Duke Mendoza! And thereupon, Men- 
doza, with Pedro as a witness, confesses what he 
knows of the court secret: the murdered prince is not 
the real Prince Carlo, but is Julio, Mendoza's son, 
substituted in infancy when the royal child was stolen 
from his nurse, Mendoza's wife. 

Subsequently, from the imprisoned duke Men- 
doza, his daughter Clara hears in full the story: 
Prince Carlo, who has courted her, is in fact her 
brother; and the murderer of this brother is her 
lover, Manuel! And yet, she cannot curse him. She 
goes to Manuel's cell, and finds Maria there. He, 

D75] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ignorant of the identity of the slain prince Carlo, is 
using the murder as a means to cure the princess of 
her love for him. Maria declares that she can for- 
give him even the death of Carlo. Then Manuel, to 
bring the princess to her reason, asks Clara to play 
Maria's part; to answer as the princess how she can 
love the man that slew the prince her brother. And 
Clara, who knows that the slain man is not Maria's 
brother but her own, declares that she can still for- 
give and love the slayer. Manuel, fearful lest Clara's 
words encourage the princess, declares emphatically 
that their love can never meet; and Clara, forgetful 
that she but plays the princess, swoons at the words. 
The princess and Manuel soon revive her; and the 
princess, touched by the love of Manuel and Clara, 
resigns her rivalry for Manuel's love, and reveals 
the identity of the murdered Carlo. Maria's decision 
ultimately involves her acceptance of Prince Antonio. 
But Julio, the pseudo-Carlo, is not dead. Despite 
the wounds inflicted by Don Manuel, he soon recov- 
ers; and Isabella, Princess of Portugal, to whom 
while lying wounded he has sent messages praying 
her forgiveness, decides that she loves the man and 
not the title: that Julio, son of Duke Mendoza, shall 
receive her hand. Since Julio-Carlo lives, Don 
Manuel is freed from prison to be joined by Clara. 
Only the king mourns: he has lost an heir, and he 

D763 



THE COURT SECRET 

VOWS that Duke Mendoza, responsible for the infant 
Carlo's loss, shall pay the penalty. Again Piracquo 
intervenes and, with Pedro as a witness, reveals the 
second part of the court secret: the pirate that stole 
young Carlo was— Piracquo! the true prince Carlo 
lives; Piracquo's "son," Don Manuel, is this royal 
heir! 

Such is The Court Secret: a dramatic romance 
turning upon a double imposture. Rarely among the 
complicated plots of Shirley is the complication at 
once more elaborate and more firmly knit. The mu- 
tual love of Manuel and Clara is assailed on the one 
hand by the love of the infanta Maria for Don Man- 
uel—her brother, though she knows it not— and on 
the other hand by the love of the supposed prince 
Carlo for Clara— his sister, as he later finds. These 
two complicating passions are complicated in their 
turn by the pending alliance of Maria with Antonio, 
Prince of Portugal, and by that of the supposed Carlo 
with Antonio's sister Isabella. And all through the 
play, Piracquo, protector of the hero, and Roderigo, 
his arch-enemy, struggle for the mastery, and give 
visual embodiment to the contending fates; while 
Duke Mendoza, timorous of conscience, and his ser- 
vant Pedro, mocking at his fears, keep ever before 
us the unknown but inevitable solution— the impend- 
ing revelation of the fatal secret. 

[:3773 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Perhaps it is in this very combination of suspense 
and of surprise as methods of holding the interest to 
the end, that Shirley, in The Court Secret, shows his 
greatest mastery. Coleridge, in listing the character- 
istics that, in his opinion, distinguish Shakspere from 
all other dramatic poets, places first Shakspere's use 
of "expectation in preference to surprise." ^^ Surprise, 
on the other hand, seems the method most frequently 
employed in the dramatic romances of Fletcher. 
That Shirley, in The Court Secret, succeeds in com- 
bining these seemingly opposed devices into one: 
that he gains the interest of suspense by making us 
expect at any moment the revelation of the all-con- 
trolling secret, and yet at the same time gains the in- 
terest of surprise by keeping us utterly in the dark as 
to what this secret is : that Shirley succeeds in doing 
this, is, I feel, no small achievement. From the 
method of Shakspere and from the method of 
Fletcher, Shirley has seized the distinguishing essen- 
tials, has reconciled their seeming conflict, and has 
utilized them both in the plot-structure of this his 
final play. 

Of the characterization of The Court Secret, little 
need be said. Except in the Mendoza-Pedro scenes, 
it is the characterization of Fletcherian romance, not 

1^ Coleridge, Complete Works (edited by Shedd, New York, 1884), 
IV, 61. 

1:3783 



THE COURT SECRET 

the characterization of Shaksperian comedy: it exists 
to tell the story, not to make it. The brave and gen- 
erous princes, the devoted ladies, the stanch Piracquo, 
the impotent king, the intriguing Roderigo: all are 
pleasing embodiments of the familiar types. Even 
the frightened duke Mendoza and his bold confeder- 
ate Pedro— who at times lift the play into the realm 
of comedy of character — are but an amusing reversal 
of the audacious Lorenzo of The Traitor and his tim- 
orous Depazzi. Not in his characters but in his plot 
lay Shirley's interest. 

Thus, with a typical romance, we conclude our reg- 
ister of Shirley's plays. Allied in subject-matter, in 
tone, and in method to The Imposture and to The 
Doubtful Heir, The Court Secret represents far bet- 
ter than The Sisters or The Cardinal or The Pol- 
itique Father the type of drama that Shirley most fre- 
quently produced: a type that presents not farce or 
humors or manners on the one hand, or psychological 
or even romantic tragedy on the other; but rather a 
type of drama that leads hero and heroine into ro- 
mantic complications seemingly inextricable, only to 
end by lifting them out of prison or slaughter to a 
throne; in short, the type of drama that springs from 
Fletcherian romance, and that needs only a more 
strenuous and blatant hero to be accepted as an ances- 
tor of the "heroic" drama of the Restoration. For 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

the last play in a period dominated by romantic 
drama, for the last play in a career presenting, as we 
have seen, a struggle between realism and romanti- 
cism, and ending in the victory of the latter, no drama 
could be more appropriate than The Court Secret. 

SUMMARY 

From a consideration of Shirley's final play as typi- 
cal of his interests and his art, I pass now to a recon- 
sideration of his final period. Out of the eleven ex- 
tant plays belonging to the years 1 636-1 642, only two 
— The Constant Maid and The Brothers — belong to 
the school in which Shirley began his work, the real- 
istic school of Jonson and of Fletcher. Neither of 
these, moreover, is particularly effective work. The 
Constant Maid, although purporting to give a pic- 
ture of London life and manners, is interesting only 
for the rather conventional usurer and country gull, 
and for the succession of surprises that constitute the 
plot. Were this frankly a romantic play, we might 
enjoy these perversities of fortune ; but in a realistic 
setting, they are too improbable to be entertaining. 
The Brothers, although better than The Constant 
Maid, in that it has a fairly clever plot and a few 
tolerably amusing characters, is saved, after all, only 
by an infusion of romantic atmosphere and pleasing 

n38o3 



summary: third period 

verse— an infusion which, in view of the nature of its 
subject, weakens rather than strengthens its artistic 
unity. Whatever merit belongs to the plays of Shir- 
ley's closing period, is not to be found in these two 
comedies of manners. 

When, however, from these two comedies of the 
realistic school, we turn to the nine romantic plays 
belonging to this period, we find, beside the nonsense 
of St. Patrick for Ireland and the repulsiveness of 
The Gentleman of Venice, a list of plays distinctly 
worth our reading. The gay farce of The Sisters; 
the involved plots and surprising resolutions of the 
three Fletcherian dramatic romances. The Doubtful 
Heir, The Imposture, and The Court Secret; the 
exquisite romantic comedy of The Royal Master; the 
somber grandeur of The Politician; and, most nota- 
ble of all, the tragic struggle and well-drawn pro- 
tagonists of The Traitor: all these not only mark 
Shirley as a master playwright, but prove, beyond a 
doubt, our thesis that Shirley's strength and Shirley's 
interest lie ultimately not in the realistic but in the 
romantic school. He began his career as a follower 
of Jonson and of Fletcher in realism ; he concluded 
it as a follower of Shakspere and of Fletcher in 
romance. 



n38in 



CHAPTER XIX 

CONCLUSION 

THE endeavor of the foregoing chapters has 
been threefold: first, to examine the little 
that we know of Shirley's life, to deter- 
mine, fact by fact, the value of the evidence, and, on 
a basis of this critical examination, to construct a 
chronology more accurate than has been hitherto 
available; second, on a basis of this revised chronol- 
ogy, to restudy the dramatic works of Shirley in order 
to determine, if possible, the course of his develop- 
ment as a dramatist; and, third, from this same exam- 
ination of the plays, to determine the distinctive char- 
acteristics of his dramatic works. 

Extensive as is the field attempted, it covers, after 
all, but a small portion of the subject-matter sug- 
gested by the title "James Shirley, Dramatist." One 
would gladly consider, for example, not merely (as 
we have done) the schools to which Shirley's several 
plays belong, but also (as we have done but rarely) 
specific instances of his indebtedness to specific plays 
of his predecessors and contemporaries.^ Particularly 

^ Since I wrote these lines, this topic has been ably treated in For- 
sythe, The Relations of Shirley^s Plays to the Elizabethan Drama, 
1914. 

1:3823 



CONCLUSION 

interesting, for instance, would be an examination of 
the probable influence of Webster upon Shirley's 
tragedies. Again, one would gladly dwell upon the 
topic announced, a dozen years ago, by Nissen:^ the 
relation of Shirley to his sources. Especially would 
one dwell upon his use of material from the Spanish, 
a field opened by Stiefel in his comparison of The 
Opportunity with El Castigo del Penseque of Tirso 
de Molina, and continued in his comparison of The 
Young Admiral with Lope de Vega's Don Lope 
de Cardona.^ Still more interesting and, I believe, 
less understood, is the relation of Shirley to his suc- 
cessors: the position of his comedies of London life 
and manners as a link between Elizabethan and 
Restoration comedy; and of his dramatic romances 
as a link between Fletcherian romance and the 
"heroic" plays of Dryden and of Otway. Ade- 
quately, however, to consider any one of these three 
topics, would demand a separate volume. The pres- 
ent monograph must be content to cover the field 
originally proposed: the chronology, the course of 
development, and the distinctive characteristics of 
the dramatic work of Shirley. 

- Nissen, p. 26, note. 

^ A. L. Stfefel, "Die Nachahmung spanischer Komodien in England 
unter den ersten Stuarts," in Romanische Forschungen, v, 1890; and 
in Archiv filr das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 
cxix, 1907. 

D83n 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 



In the chronological portion of our study, our en- 
deavor has been not so much to gather new material 
as to verify the data and weigh anew the inferences of 
previous biographers. Important has it been to verify 
even their citations from Herbert's license-list, from 
the Stationers' Register, and from the title-pages of 
the first editions of the works of Shirley; for, as we 
have had occasion frequently to note, errors, typo- 
graphical and otherwise, have crept in and have been 
handed on : Fleay, in Anglia, has made at least seven 
errors of mere date, and Ward, in the Dictionary of 
National Biography, has made as many more.^ Im- 
portant also has it been to eliminate the imagina- 
tive touches that have appeared even in articles pur- 
porting to be contributions to exact scholarship— the 
conjectures of one biographer that, in the work of his 
successor, have strangely been transformed to cer- 
tainties — and to distinguish, in the account of Wood 
and other secondary sources, between the certain, the 
probable, and the merely possible. Especially im- 
portant has it been to analyze the logic of the argu- 
ments by which the Shirleian annalists have sought 
to establish facts for which direct evidence is lacking: 
to show wherein they have established their hypothe- 

* Cf. the list of misprints under "Fleay" and "Ward" in the Bibli- 
ography. 

C3843 



CONCLUSION 

ses, and to point out wherein their inferences are as 
yet unwarranted. By this twofold process of verifica- 
tion and logical analysis, we have built up a Shirleian 
chronology— differing not greatly from that hereto- 
fore accepted; not final, let us hope, for many inter- 
esting problems remain yet for solution ; but, at least, 
typographically more accurate and logically more 
circumspect than any chronology of Shirley previ- 
ously proposed. 

Concerning the private life of Shirley, our conclu- 
sions have been very largely negative. We have seen 
that the old-time hypotheses concerning the parentage 
of Shirley are without foundation ; that his life, from 
leaving Merchant Taylors' School in 1612 to the be- 
ginning of his dramatic career in 1625, is a subject 
of which we know with certainty almost nothing— 
unless we accept as certain the unsupported statements 
of Anthony a Wood, a generation subsequent to Shir- 
ley's death; that, in view of the distinction between 
Beeston's "Queen's men" of Drury Lane and Tur- 
ner's "Queen's men" of Salisbury Court of later date, 
Shirley's alleged quarrel with the latter, upon his 
return from Ireland in 1640, is wholly mythical; that 
concerning his service under Newcastle, we have no 
reliable details : in short, that our certain knowledge 
of the private life of Shirley is limited, except for an 
occasional allusion in his dedications, to the contents 

1:3853 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

of five documents: the record of the christening of 
"James the sonne of James Sharlie" and other entries 
referring to their family, in the register of St. Mary 
Woolchurch; the probation register of Merchant 
Taylors' School; the record of the christening of 
"Mathias, sonne of Mr. James Shurley, gentleman" 
at St. Giles without Cripplegate; Shirley's will 
— a document significant not only for the extensive 
bequests which it records but also for its specific men- 
tion of Mathias as Shirley's eldest son; and, finally, 
the passage in the burial register of St. Giles in the 
Fields for October 29, 1666. 

With regard, however, to Shirley's life as drama- 
tist, we have abundant data. Malone, in his extracts 
from the office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of 
the Revels, has preserved an almost complete list of 
the dates when Shirley's plays were licensed for pres- 
entation. The dates on which his plays and other 
works were entered for publication are accessible in 
Arber's excellent transcript of the Stationers' Regis- 
ter. The dates of actual publication, the names of 
the companies by whom the dramas were presented, 
and many other facts of consequence, are preserved 
to us on the title-pages of the works themselves ; and 
the lists of published works appended to The Maid's 
Revenge, 1639, and to The Cardinal, 1652, warrant 
the belief that all the works actually published, ex- 

1:3863 



CONCLUSION 

cept the first edition of Echo and Narcissus, have 
survived. The most important of the questions in dis- 
pute—the truth of Fleay's hypothesis that The Bro- 
thers of 1652 is identical not with The Brothers of 
1626 but with The Politique Father of 1641, has been 
determined, conclusively I trust, by Nissen's argu- 
ment from the dedication to Thomas Stanley, Esq., 
and by the extract (first published in the present 
monograph) from Moseley's catalogue in the Hoe 
copy of the Six New Playes. In short, for our pur- 
posed study of Shirley's development as a dramatist, 
our chronology of his works is practically complete. 



II 

Having thus determined, so far as available evidence 
permits, the chronology of Shirley's life and works, 
we endeavored, secondly, to ascertain the course of 
Shirley's development as a dramatist. In the plays 
of Shirley, we distinguished two broad types: first, 
that in which Shirley's work is to be classed with the 
realistic plays of Fletcher and of Jonson ; and, second, 
that in which it is to be classed with the romantic 
plays of Fletcher and of Shakspere. The emphasis 
given by some editors and critics to The Witty Fair 
One, Hyde Park, The Gamester, and The Lady of 
Pleasure has at times given the impression that Shir- 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ley was chiefly a writer of comedy of manners — and 
of manners most repulsive. How far from accurate 
is this impression will appear from a recapitulation 
of our critical survey. 

In what we have called his first dramatic period— 
from 1625 to 1632— the work of Shirley was, indeed, 
chiefly realistic. Three and a half plays of this pe- 
riod may be counted on the romantic side: The 
Maid^s Revenge and The Traitor are romantic trag- 
edies ; The Grateful Servant is romantic comedy; and 
Love Tricks, or The School of Complement is in part 
romantic, especially in the pastoral scenes. But 
against these must be reckoned seven and a half plays 
belonging to the realistic school. At least half of 
Love Tricks, and practically all of The Wedding, 
The Witty Fair One, The Humorous Courtier, 
Lovers Cruelty, Changes, or Love in a Maze, Hyde 
Park, and The Ball, are realistic. Moreover, were 
we to accept the old assumption (which I trust we 
have refuted) that the play published as The Bro- 
thers in 1652 is identical with the play licensed under 
that title in 1626, we should but strengthen our gen- 
eralization that Shirley began his career as a fol- 
lower of the realistic school of Jonson and of 
Fletcher. 

In Shirley's second dramatic period, however, this 
proportion of three and a half romantic plays to seven 

[3883 



CONCLUSION 

and a half realistic plays is practically reversed. In 
this period from 1632 to 1636, only three plays— TA^ 
Gamester^ The Example, and The Lady of Pleasure 
— can be counted as realistic; the other six — The Ar- 
cadia, The Bird in a Cage, The Young Admiral, The 
Opportunity, The Coronation, and The Duke^s Mis- 
tress — are romantic. Were we to include in our esti- 
mate, Chabot, Admiral of France, which we have 
concluded to be primarily by Chapman, we should 
have, for this second period, a total of seven romantic 
plays against but three that are realistic. 

Shirley's growing interest in the romantic field, 
made evident by our summary thus far, is confirmed 
by our examination of his remaining work — his plays 
from his departure for Ireland in 1636 to the closing 
of the theaters in 1642. Of the eleven extant plays 
that we have assigned to this his final period, only 
two — The Constant Maid and The Brothers— 3.tq 
realistic ; and, strangely enough, were we seeking only 
to demonstrate our thesis, we could find some ground 
for assigning these two plays not to the final but to 
the earliest period. The Constant Maid was entered 
in the Stationers' Register on April 28, 1640; but the 
date of its composition is unknown, and internal evi- 
dence would place it in Shirley's period of appren- 
ticeship. The Brothers of 1652, which we have iden- 
tified with The Politique Father of 1641, most critics 

1:3891 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

have been content to identify with The Brothers of 
1626. However this may be, the other plays that we 
have assigned to Shirley's final period are all roman- 
tic — The Royal Master, The Gentleman of Venice, 
The Politician, St. Patrick for Ireland, The Doubt- 
ful Heir, The Imposture, The Cardinal, The Sisters, 
and The Court Secret— nmt plays against a probable 
two. 

To take too literally and too absolutely the figures 
in the preceding paragraphs, would be unfortunate. 
The exact division between realism and romanticism 
is difficult to make; and some critics, as we have 
noted, divide the plays a little differently. With this 
qualification, however, it is useful to express in defi- 
nite figures our impressions of the course of Shirley's 
development as a dramatist. Stated in tabular form, 
they are as follows : 

PLAYS PLAYS 

PERIOD PRIMARILY PRIMARILY 

ROMANTIC REALISTIC 

First: 1625-1632 3,^2 7/^ 

Second: 1 632-1 636 6 3 

Third: 1 636-1 642 9 2 



Totals i8>^ I2y2 

For the popular impression that Shirley is primarily 
a realistic dramatist, these totals, regardless of chro- 
nology, should have been sufficient refutation; but 
when we see from our classification by periods, that 

1:3903 



CONCLUSION 

at least sixty per cent, of Shirley's realistic work falls 
in the first seven years of his career, the refutation 
becomes overwhelming. Shirley began his work as 
playwright as a realist; but the direction of his devel- 
opment was toward the romantic school : from Jon- 
sonian and Fletcherian comedy of manners and of 
humors, he passed to Fletcherian and Shaksperean 
romantic comedy, dramatic romance, and romantic 
tragedy. 



Ill 



Besides reconstructing the chronology of Shirley's 
life and work, and tracing the course of his develop- 
ment as a dramatist, we have endeavored in our study 
to give some impressions of the characteristics of his 
drama. These characteristics we can best review by 
regrouping his plays under the two heads already 
indicated. 

As a follower of the realistic school of Jonson and 
of Fletcher, Shirley's material is twofold: true but 
satiric pictures of the life of court and town; and 
the exaggerated sketches that we know technically 
as "characters of humor." Citizen life appears most 
fully in The Constant Maid, in Hyde Park, and in 
The Gamester, and life in somewhat higher circles 
in The Witty Fair One, The Wedding, The Ball, 

1:390 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Changes^ or Love in a Maze, The Lady of Pleasure, 
and The Example. To the same group, despite their 
nominally Portuguese and Italian settings, belong 
The Brothers of 1652, which we have identified with 
The Politique Father, and Lovers Cruelty, a tragedy 
of adultery, which, notwithstanding the presence of 
a duke of Ferrara and his court, is at most no more 
romantic than The Example. Socially, these plays 
present at times the commonness of Middleton, at 
times the gentlehood of Fletcher. Morally they vary 
from the repulsiveness of Jonson at his worst to the 
wholesomeness of Shakspere at his best. Often offen- 
sive to our modern taste, they are not always immoral 
in their influence: The Lady of Pleasure is a stinging 
satire against extravagance, gaming, drunkenness, 
and licentiousness; Lovers Cruelty and The Example 
preach even more eloquently of chastity and true 
nobility. 

Yet not alone as true pictures of the life of the 
court and town do these plays attest the influence of 
Jonson and his fellow realists: in these comedies of 
manners— and in many a romantic play as well— 
Shirlev has inserted ^^characters of humor." Tacomo 
of The Grateful Servant, Bombo of The Royal 
Master, Piperollo of The Sisters, Young Barnacle 
of The Gamester, Hornet and Startup of The Con- 
stant Maid, Rawbone and Lodam of The Wedding, 

1:392] 



CONCLUSION 

Depazzi of The Traitor, Bubulcus of Love Tricks, 
Sir Gervase Simple and Caperwit of Changes, or 
Love in a Maze, Sir Nicholas Treedle and the 
omniscient Brains of The Witty Fair One, Orseolo 
and others of The Humorous Courtier, Jack Fresh- 
water, Bostock, Barker, and Monsieur Le Frisk 
of The Ball, Vainman, Pumicestone, Oldrat, Dor- 
mant, of The Example, and, best of all, in the same 
play, Sir Solitary Plot: each, to use the definition of 
Dryden, is the embodiment of "some extravagant 
habit, passion, or affection ... by the oddness of 
which he is immediately distinguished from the rest 
of men";^ each illustrates the wealth of adapta- 
tion and creation of Shirley's "characters of humor." 

Yet not in realism— whether "humorous" or satiric 
—but in romance, did Shirley do his most distinctive 
work: in dramatic romance, in romantic comedy, and 
in romantic tragedy. 

Dramatic romance — distinguished from romantic 
comedy chiefly by stress upon surprising revelations 
of the plot rather than upon the depiction or develop- 
ment of character — is Shirley's most frequent, though 
not most fruitful field. It is, moreover, the type in 
which Shirley's work most closely approximates the 
work of Fletcher. Slightly suggested in the masque 

^ Of Dramatick Poesicj an Essay. By John Dryden, Esq. . . . 
1668, in Ker, Essays of John Dryden, I, 85. 

D93 3 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

and pastoral element of Love Tricks, in the maiden- 
page of The }Vedding,^ndinthe miracles of St. Pat- 
rick for Ireland, this Fletcherian type is thoroughly 
exemplified in the oracle, the disguises, and the sur- 
prising denouement of The Arcadia; in the incog- 
nito, the extravagance, and the startling resolution of 
The Bird in a Cage; in the concealed identity and 
kaleidoscopic changes of The Coronation; in the 
exchanged positions of Giovanni and Thomazo in 
The Gentleman of Venice; in the shifting love, the 
maiden-page, and the successive revolutions of The 
Doubtful Heir; and, finally, in the blending of sur- 
prise and of suspense in the double imposture of The 
Court Secret. Slight as several of these romances are, 
they are lacking neither in interest nor in poetic 
charm. At their best, they have a tensity of climax 
and an unexpectedness of outcome that hold one 
breathless. Whatever their weaknesses, they demon- 
strate at least Shirley's mastery of romantic plot. 

Differing from the dramatic romances by virtue of 
attention rather to character than to plot, the seven 
romantic comedies of Shirley may be further divided 
into three groups. The Sisters and The Opportunity 
are fun run mad ; The Duke's Mistress, on the other 
hand, and, to a less degree. The Imposture and The 
Young Admiral, are highly serious and almost 
tragic; and between these two extremes is a third 

1:394] 



CONCLUSION 

group, characterized neither by laughter nor by 
death, but rather by exquisite delicacy of sentiment 
and of poetic charm: The Grateful Servant and The 
Royal Master, And what a delightful gallery of 
character these seven comedies present! The bold 
bandit Frapolo masquerading as Farnese, Prince of 
Parma; his haughty bride, Paulina, brought low by 
the revelation of her birth; Aurelio Andreozzi of 
Milan mistaken in Urbino for the banished Borgia, 
loving and beloved by both Cornelia and the duchess, 
yet unable to seize his ^^opportunity" in either suit; 
Ardelia of The Duke^s Mistress; Juliana of The Im- 
posture; Vittori of The Young Admiral, and, with 
him, Cassandra, Cesario, and Rosinda; Princess Leo- 
nora of The Grateful Servant, with Foscari and 
Cleona; and, best of all, the king, Montalto, Octavio, 
and little Domitilla of The Royal Master: these are 
characters worthy of our acquaintance— and remem- 
brance. In these romantic comedies, Shirley pro- 
duces something different from— and better than — 
his Fletcherian romances. 

Least numerous, least representative of the work of 
Shirley, least adequate— if tried by the standard of 
the best that the English drama has produced— and 
yet, in themselves, notable contributions to that 
drama, are his romantic tragedies. Of these. The 
Maid^s Revenge is admittedly least worthy; yet, with 

1:3953 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

its Struggle between love and filial duty, its wholesale 
slaughter, and its pathetic maiden-page, this play, the 
second that Shirley dedicated to the stage, is no mean 
production for the youthful dramatist. Chabot, with 
its fine unity and its sympathetic characterization, we 
must not claim for Shirley, for we know not how far 
he collaborated with Chapman in the drama. The 
Politician J however, somber in subject, powerful in 
scene, mighty in its protagonist, Marpisa, is a tragedy 
worthy of any but the greatest dramatist. Finally, 
most powerful if not most pleasing of all the plays of 
Shirley, stand his two tragedies. The Traitor and The 
Cardinal: the former masterly in plot and more than 
masterly in characterization; the latter masterly in 
character-delineation, but especially notable for man- 
agement of plot. For, as the contest between the 
duchess and the cardinal, with its climax of madness, 
of poison, and of slaughter, is a struggle almost Web- 
sterian in its piteous horror, so, in The Traitor, the 
villainy of Lorenzo, the virtuous suffering of Ami- 
dea, and the noble vengeance of Sciarrha, make these 
characters a permanent contribution to our English 
tragedy. 

Such was James Shirley, in life, in development, 
and in achievement: in life, a man of whose personal 
career we can establish little, but of whose literary 
chronology we have recorded much ; in development, 



CONCLUSION 

a convert from realism to romanticism; in achieve- 
ment, a dramatist who, inheriting the best that his 
predecessors— Jonson, Fletcher, Shakspere— had to 
offer, combined their methods and their materials 
into a body of plays well worth our study. Let us dis- 
miss him, therefore, as we introduced him, neither 
with the sometimes excessive commendation nor with 
the frequently ill-founded disparagement of Swin- 
burne, but with the modest praise of Milton's nephew, 
Phillips: "James Shirley, a just pretender to more 
than the meanest place among the English poets, but 
most especially for Dramatic Poesy, in which he hath 
written both very much, and for the most part with 
that felicity that by some he is accounted little in- 
ferior to Fletcher himself."^ 

* Phillips, Theatrum Poetarum, 1675, pp. 80-81. 



1:3973 



ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Part I 

THE PUBLISHED WORKS OF JAMES SHIRLEY, 
CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED 

Shirley, James. i6i8. 

Eccho, or the Infortunate Lovers, a poem, by James Sherley, 

Cant, in Art. Bacc. Lond. 1618. 8vo. 

Primum hunc Arethusa, mihi concede laborem. 

Thus, in Censura Liter aria, li, 382, Samuel Egerton Brydges quotes the 
title-page of Shirley's earliest work, "from a Ms. note to Astle's copy of 
Wood's Athena." As no copy of this edition of Eccho has survived, we 
cannot judge of the accuracy of the transcript. In the Stationers' Regis- 
ter, the entry is as follows: "4 Januarij 1617 [i.e., 1617/18]. Ecc[_h']o and 
Narcissus the 2 Vnfortunate Louers written by Jeames Sherley." See S. R., 
Ill, 286. 

Shirley, James. 1629. 

The Wedding. As it was lately Acted by her Maiesties Ser- 
uants, at the Phcenix in Drury Lane. Written By lames Shirley, 
Gent. Horat. — Multaq; pars mei Vitabit Libitinam — London. 
Printed for lohn Groue, and are to be sold at his shop at Furni- 
ualls Inne Gate in Holborne. 1629. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1630. 

The Gratefvll Servant. A Comedie. As it was lately presented 
with good applause at the priuate House in Drury-Lane, By her 
Majesties Servants. Written by lames Shirley Gent. — Vsque ego 
postera Crescam laude recens. London. Printed by B. A. and 
T. F. for John Groue, and are to be sold at his shop at Furnivals- 
Inne gate, 1630. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

1:4013 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley, James. 1631. 

The Schoole of Complement. As it was acted by her Maiesties 
Seruants at the Priuate house in Drury Lane. — Hecc placuit semel. 
— By J. S. London, Printed by E. A. for Francis Constable, and 
are to be sold at his shop in Pauls Church-yard, at the signe of the 
Crane. 1631. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1632. 

Changes : or. Love in a Maze. A Comedie, As it was presented 
at the Private House in Salisbury Court, by the Company of His 

Majesties Revels. Written by lames Shirley, Gent. Deserta 

per avia dulcis Raptat Amor. London: Printed by G. P. for 
William Cooke, and are to be sold at his shop neere Furnivals Inne 
gate in Holborne, 1632. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1633. 

*^ The Wedding. As it was lately Acted by her Maiesties Ser- 
uants, at the Phenix in Drury-Lane. Written by lames Shirley, 
Gent. Horat. — Multaq, pars mei Vitabit Libitinam — London; 
Printed for lohn Groue, and are to be sold at his Shop in Chan- 
cery-Lane, neere the Rowles, ouer against the Suppeny-Office. 
1633. 

Second edition. From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1633. 

A Contention for Honovr and Riches. By J. S. — ubi quid 
datur oti, illudo chartis — London, Printed by E. A. for William 
Cooke, and are to be sold at his shop neere Furnivals Inne gate in 
Holborne. 1633. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1633. 

The Wittie Faire One. A Comedie. As it was presented at 

1:4023 



bibliography: part i 

the Private House in Drvry Lane. By her Maiesties Servants. 
By lames Shirley. . . . London Printed by B. A. and T. F. for 
Wil. Cooke, and are to be sold at his shop, neere Furnivals-lnne 
Gate, in Holborne. 1633. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1633. 

The Bird in a Cage. A Comedie. As it hath beene Presented 
at the Phoenix in Drury-Lane. The Author lames Shirley, Ser- 
vant to Her Majesty. luven. Satyra. 7. Et Spes, & ratio Stu- 
diorum, in Caesare tantum. London Printed by B. Alsop. and T. 
Fawcet. for William Cooke, and are to be sold at his Shop neere 
Furnivals-lnne Gate, in Holborne. 1633. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1633/34. 

The Trivmph of Peace. A Masque, presented by the Foure Hon- 
ourable Houses, or Innes of Court. Before the King and Queenes 
Majesties, in the Banquetting-house at White Hall, February the 
third, 1633. Invented and Written, By James Shirley, of Grayes 
Inne, Gent. Primum hunc Arethusa mihi — London, Printed 
by lohn Norton, for William Cooke, and are to be sold at his Shop, 
neere Furnivals-lnne-gate, in Holborne. 1633. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1635. 

■^ The Traytor. A Tragedie, written by lames Shirley. Acted 
By her Majesties Servants. London: Printed for William Cooke, 
and are to be sold at his Shop at Furnivals Inne-gate in Holborne. 
1635. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1637. 

•^ The Lady of Pleasvre. A Comedie, As it was Acted by her 
Majesties Servants, at the private House in Drury Lane. Written 

1:4033 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

by James Shirly. London, Printed by The. Cotes, for Andrew 
Crooke, and William Cooke. 1637. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1637. 

Hide Parke a comedie. As it was presented by her Majesties Ser- 
vants, at the private house in Drury Lane. Written by James 
Shirly. London, Printed by Tho. Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and 
William Cooke. 1637. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1637. 

The Yovng Admirall. As it was presented By her Majesties 

Servants, at the private house in Drury Lane. Written by James 

Shirly. London, Printed by Tho. Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and 

William Cooke. 1637. 

From the copy belonging to the author of the present study, identical, 
as to title-page, with the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1637. 

"* The Example. As it was presented by her Majesties Servants 
At the private House in Drury-Lane. Written by lames Shirly. 
London. Printed by lohn Norton, for Andrew Crooke, and Wil- 
liam Cooke. 1637. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1637. 

A The Gamester. As it was presented by her Majesties Servants 
At the private House in Drury-Lane. Written By lames Shirly. 
London. Printed by lohn Norton, for Andrew Crooke, and Wil- 
liam Cooke. 1637. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1637. 

->' The Schoole of Complement. As it was acted by her Majesties 

1:404: 



bibliography: part i 

Servants at the Private house in Drury Lane. — Haec placuit semel. 

By I. S. London. Printed By I. H. for Francis Constable, and 

are to be sold at his shop under Saint Martins Church neere Lud- 

gate. 1637. 

The second edition. From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, 
Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1637. 

The Gratefvll Servant. A Comedie. As it was lately presented 
with good applause in the private House in Drury-Lane. By her 
Majesties Servants. Written by James Shirley Gent. — Usque ego 
postera Crescam laude recens. London: Printed by I. Okes for 
William Leake, and are to be sold at his shop in Chancery-lane 
neere the Roules. 1637. 

The second edition. From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, 
Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1638. 

The Royall Master; As it was Acted in the new Theater in 
Dublin: and Before the Right Honorable the Lord Deputie of 
Ireland, in the Castle. Written by lames Shirley. — Fas extera 
quaerere regna. Printed by T. Cotes, and are to be sold by Thomas 
Allot and Edmond Crooke, neare the Castle in Dublin. 1638. 

The Irish issue of the first edition. From the copy belonging to the late 
Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1638. 

K The Royall Master ; As it was Acted in the new Theater in 
Dublin: and Before the Right Honorable the Lord Deputie of 
Ireland, in the Castle. Written by lames Shirley — Fas extera 
quaerere regna. London, Printed by T. Cotes, and are to be sold 
by lohn Crooke, and Richard Serger, at the Grayhound in Pauls 
Church-yard. 1638. 

The English issue of the first edition. From the copy belonging to the 
late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

1:4053 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley, James. 1638. 

The Dvkes Mistris, As it was presented by her Majesties Ser- 
vants, At the private House in Drury-Lane. Written by lames 
Shirly. London, Printed by John Norton, for William Cooke, 
1638. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

*^ Shirley, James. 1639. 

The Ball: a Comedy; As it was presented by her Majesties 
Servants, at the private House in Drury Lane. Written by George 
Chapman, and James Shirly. London, Printed by Tho. Cotes, 
for Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 1639. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 643. d. 2. 

Shirley, James (and Chapman, George). 1639. 

The Tragedie of Chabot Admirall of France: As it was pre- 
sented by her Majesties Servants, at the private House in Drury 
Lane. Written by George Chapman, and James Shirly. London, 
Printed by The Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 
1639. 

From the facsimile title-page in Lehman's edition, 1906. 

X Shirley, James. 1639. 

The Maides Revenge. A Tragedy. As it hath beene Acted 
with good Applause at the private house in Drury Lane, by her 
Majesties Servants. Written by lames Shirley Gent. London. 
Printed by T. C. for William Cooke, and are to be sold at his shop 
at Furnivalls Inne Gate in Holbourne. 1639. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1640. 

A The Hvmorovs Covrtier. A Comedy, As it hath been presented 
with good applause at the private house in Drury-Lane. Written 
by lames Shirley Gent. London. Printed by T. C. for William 

[4063 



bibliography: part i 

Cooke, and are to be sold by James Becket, in the Inner Temple. 
1640. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1640. 

^ Loves Crveltie. A Tragedy, As it was presented by her Maj- 
esties Servants, at the private House in Drury Lane. Written by 
James Shirley Gent. London, Printed by Tho. Cotes, for Andrew 
Crooke. 1640. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1640. 

'^A Pastorall called the Arcadia. Acted by her Majesties Ser- 
vants at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. Written by lames Shirly 
Gent. London, Printed by I. D. for lohn Williams, and F. 
Eglesfeild and are to be sould at the signe of the Crane in Pauls 
Church-yard. 1 640. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1640. 

^ The Opportvnitie a comedy. As it was presented by her Maj- 
esties Servants; at the private House in Drury Lane. Written by 
lames Shirley. London. Printed by Thomas Cotes for Andrew 
Crooke, and Will. Cooke, and are to be sold at the Signe of the 
Greene Dragon in Pauls Church-yard. 1640. 

From the copy belonging to the author of the present study, identical, 
as to title-page, with the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. [1640.] 

^ The Opportvnitie a comedy. As it was presented by her Maj- 
esties Servants, at the private House in Drury Lane. Written by 
lames Shirley. London. Printed by Thomas Cotes for Andrew 
Crooke, and are to be sold at the Signe of the Greene Dragon in 
Pauls Church-yard, [n.d.] 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. Described in 
his Catalogue of Early English Books, iv, i6i, as "The sheets of the 1640 
edition reissued, with the imprint alone altered. Collation: The same as 
the first edition." 

1:407] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley, James. 1640. 

^ The Coronation a comedy. As it was presented by her Maj- 
esties Servants at the private House in Drury Lane. Written by 
John Fletcher. Gent. London, Printed by Tho. Cotes, for An- 
drew Crooke, and William Cooke, and are to be sold at the signe 
of the Greene Dragon, in Pauls Church-yard. 1640. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

The publication of this play with Fletcher's name upon the title-page, 
was made during Shirley's absence in Ireland. That it is Shirle)r's, how- 
ever, there can be no doubt: it was licensed as Shirley's February 6, 
1634/5; ^°d it "^^s publicly reclaimed by Shirley in "A Catalogue of the 
Authors Poems already Printed," appended to The Cardinal, 1652 (in Six 
Neiv Playes, 1653), in the following words: "The Coronation. Falsely 
ascribed to Jo. Fletcher." 

Shirley, James. 1640. 

St. Patrick for Ireland. The first Part. Written by James 
Shirley. London, Printed by J. Raworth, for R. Whitaker. 1640. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

^[ Shirley, James. 1640. 

The Constant Maid. A Comedy. Written by James Shirley. 
London, Printed by J. Raworth, for R. Whitaker. 1640. 
From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James, reviser. 1640. 

The Night Walker or the Little Theife. A Comedy, As it was 
presented by her Majesties Servants, at the Private House in 
Drury Lane. Written by John Fletcher. Gent. London, Printed 
by Tho. Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke. 1640. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 644. e. 3. 
A play of Fletcher's revised by Shirley. 

Shirley, James. 1646. 

Poems &c. By James Shirley. Sine aliqua dementia nullus 
Phoebus. London, Printed for Humphrey Moseley, and are to be 

1:408: 



bibliography: part i 

sold at his shop at the signe of the Princes Armes in St. Pauls 
Church-yard. 1646. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

The frontispiece is the same engraving of Shirley that again appears 
in Six New Playes, 1653, a portrait marked **W. Marshall sculpsit, 1646." 
Further on, some one has inserted in this copy the portrait of Shirley 
marked: "lacobus Shirlaeus," "G. Phenik pinx.," "R. Gaywood fecit, 
1658." After the first 80 pages, the numbering begins anew with the 
following title-page : 

Narcissus, or, The Self-Lover. By James Shirley. Haec olim — 
London, Printed for Humphrey Moseley, and are to be sold at 
his shop at the signe of the Princes Armes in St. Pauls Church- 
yard. MDCXLVI. 

Of this part, the page-numbers run, 1-46, and then 147-159. Begin- 
ning p. 35, are "Prologues and Epilogues; written to severall Playes Pre- 
sented in this Kingdom, and elsewhere." Then, with new pagination, 
follows: 

The Trivmph of Beavtie. As it was personated by some young 
Gentlemen, for whom it was intended, at a private Recreation. 
By James Shirley. London, Printed for Humphrey Mosely, and 
are to be sold at his shop, at the Signe of the Princes Armes in St. 
Pauls Churchyard. MDCXLVI. 

Shirley, James. 1647. 

To the Reader. 

An address prefixed to: 

Comedies and Tragedies Written by Francis Beavmont And 
lohn Fletcher Gentlemen. Never printed before. And now pub- 
lished by the Authours Originall Copies. Si quid habent veri 
Vatum praesagia, vivam. London, Printed for Humphrey Robin- 
son, at the three Pidgeons, and for Humphrey Moseley at the 
Princes Armes in St Pauls Church-yard. 1647. 

From the copy belonging to Ernest Dressel North, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1649. 

Via ad Latinam Linguam Complanata. The Way made plain 

1:4093 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

to the Latine Tongue. The Rules composed in English and Latine 
Verse: For the greater Delight and Benefit of Learners. By 
James Shirley. Avia Pieridum peragro loca. Lucret. London, 
Printed by R. W. for John Stephenson, at the signe of the Sun on 
Ludgate-Hill. 1649. 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1653. 

Six New Playes, Viz. The Brothers. Sisters. Doubtfull Heir. 
Imposture. Cardinall. Court Secret. The Five first were acted 
at the Private House in Black Fryers with great Applause. The 
last was never Acted. All Written by James Shirley. Never 
printed before. London, Printed for Humphrey Robinson at the 
Three Pigeons, and Humphrey Moseley at the Prince's Armes in 
St. Paul's Curch-yard, 1653. 

From the copy belonging to the author of the present study, identical, 
as to title-pages, with the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Facing the joint title-page, as frontispiece, is an engraving of Shirley 
(identical with that previously prefixed to the Poems) signed "W. Mar- 
shall sculpsit, 1646." The title-pages of the several plays are as follows: 

^The Brothers, A Comedie, As It was Acted at the private House 
in Black Fryers. Written By James Shirley. Never Printed before. 
London, Printed for Humphrey Robinson at the Three Pigeons, 
and Humphrey Moseley at the Prince Armes in St. Paul's Church- 
yard. 1652. 

^ The Sisters, A Comedie, As It was acted at the private House 
in Black Fryers, Written By James Shirley. Never Printed before. 
London, Printed for Humphrey Robinson at the Three Pigeons, 
and Humphrey Moseley at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church- 
yard. 1652. 

"^ The Doubtful Heir. A Tragi-comedie, As It was Acted at the 
private House in Black Friers, Written By James Shirley. Never 
Printed before. London, Printed for Humphrey Robinson at the 

1:410:] 



bibliography: part i 

three Pigeons, and Humphrey Moseley at the Prince's Arms in 
St. Paul's Church-yard. 1652. 

^ The Impostvre A Tragi-Comedie, As It was Acted at the pri- 
vate House in Black Fryers. Written By James Shirley. Never 
Printed before. London, Printed for Humphrey Robinson at the 
Three Pigeons, and Humphrey Moseley at the Prince's Armes in 
St. Paul's Curch-yard. 1652. 

"^^The Cardinal, A Tragedie, As It was acted at the private House 
in Black Fryers, Written By James Shirley. Not Printed before. 
London, Printed for Humphrey Robinson at the Three Pigeons, 
and Humphrey Moseley at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church- 
yard. 1652. 

^The Court Secret, A Tragi-Comedy : Never Acted, But pre- 
pared for the Scene at Black-Friers. Written By James Shirley. 
Never printed before. London, Printed for Humphrey Robinson 
at the three Pigeons, and for Humphrey Moseley at the Prince's 
Armes in Saint Paul's Church-yard. 1653. 

At the end of The Cardinal is appended a "Catalogue of the Authors 
Poems already Printed," which I have quoted in a note in Chapter V. 
In Mr. Hoe's copy, there was appended to The Court Secret a list of 
books for sale by Humphrey Moseley, containing evidence, which I have 
quoted in my second chapter, as to the identity of The Brothers of 1652. 

Shirley, James. 1653. 

Cvpid and Death. A Masque. As it was Presented before his 
Excellencie, The Embassadour of Portugal, Upon the 26. of 
March, 1653. Written by J. S. London: Printed according to 
the Authors own Copy, by T. W. for J. Crook, & J. Baker, at the 
Sign of the Ship in St. Pauls Church-Yard, 1653. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 644. c. 64. 

Shirley, James. 1655. 

The Gentleman of Venice A Tragi-Comedie Presented at the 
Private house in Salisbury Court by her Majesties Servants. Writ- 
ten by James Shirley. London, Printed for Humphrey Moseley 

[4113 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

and are to be sold at his Shop at the Princes Armes in St. Pauls 
Church-yard. 1655. 

From the copy belonging to the author of the present study, identical, 
as to title-page, with the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1655. 

The Polititian, A Tragedy, Presented at Salisbury Court By 

Her Majesties Servants; Written By James Shirley. London, 

Printed for Humphrey Moseley and are to be sold at his Shop at 

the Princes Armes in St. Pauls Church-yard. 1655. 

From the copy belonging to the author of the present study, identical, 
as to title-page, with the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 

Shirley, James. 1656. 

The Rudiments of Grammar. The Rules Composed in Eng- 
lish Verse, For The greater Benefit and delight of young Begin- 
ners. By James Shirley. Vtile dulci. London, Printed by J. 
Macock for R. Lownds, and are to be sold at his shop at the white 
Lyon in Paul's Church-yard, 1656. 

From the copy in the British Museum: E. 1704. (2). 

Shirley, James. 1659. 

Honoria and Mammon. Written by James Shirly Gent. Scene 
Metropolis, or New-Troy. Whereunto is added the Contention of 
Ajax and Ulisses, for the Armour of Achilles. As it was repre- 
sented by young Gentlemen of quality at a private entertainment of 
some Persons of Honour. London, Printed for John Crook, and are 
to be sold at his shop at the signe of the Ship in S. Pauls Church- 
yard, 1659. 

The foregoing transcript is from one of the copies belonging to the late 
Robert Hoe, Esq., in whose library were three copies, one of which, bound 
with The Triumph of Beauty, appears to lack the joint title-page. The 
division title-pages are as follows: 

Honoria and Mammon. Written by James Shirley. [Three 
lines in Latin.] London, Printed by T. W. for John Crook, at 
the sign of the ship in S. Pauls Church-yard, [n.d.] 

1:4123 



t 



bibliography: part I 

The Contention of Ajax and Ulysses, for the Armor of Achilles. 
As It was nobly represented by young Gentlemen of quality, at a 
private Entertainment of some persons of Honour. Written By 
James Shirley. London, Printed for John Crook, at the sign of 
the ship in S. Pauls Church-yard, [n.d.] 

Shirley, James. 1659. 

Cupid and Death. A Private Entertainment, represented with 
Scenes & Musick, Vocall & Instrumental. Written by J. S. Lon- 
don, Printed for John Crooke and John Playford, and are to be 
sold at their Shops in St. Paul's Church-yard and in the Inner 
Temple. 1659. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 644. c. 66. 

Shirley, James. 1660. 

Manductio: or, A leading of Children by the Hand Through 
the Principles of Grammar. The second Edition, Enlarged. By 
Ja: Shirley. Perveniri ad summum nisi ex principiis non potest. 
London, Printed for Richard Lowndes, at the White-Lion in S. 
Pauls Church-yard. 1660. 

From the copy in the British Museum: E. 193 1 (2). 

Shirley, James. 1660. 

The Wedding. As it was lately Acted by her Majesties Ser- 
vants, at the Phgnix in Drury Lane. Written by James Shirley, 
Gent. Horat. — Multaq; pars mei Vitabit Libitinam — London. 
Printed for William Leake, and are to be sold at the Crowne in 
Fleet-Street, between the two Temple Gates, 1660. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 644. c. 68. 

Shirley, James. i66o[?]. 

The Grateful Servant. A Comedy. As it was Presented with 
good Applause in the private House in Drury-Lane. By Her Maj- 
esties Servants. Written by James Shirley, Gent. London, 

1:413:1 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Printed for William Leake, at the Crown in Fleetstreet, between 
the two Temple Gates, [n.d.] 

1660? From the copy in the British Museum: 644. c. 38. 

Shirley, James. 1661. 

Love will finde out the Way. An Excellent Comedy. By T. B. 

As it was Acted with great Applause, by Her Majesties Servants, 

at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. London: Printed by Ja: Cottrel, 

for Samuel Speed, at the Signe of the Printing-Press in St. Paul's 

Church-yard. 1 66 1 . 

From the copy belonging to the late Robert Hoe, Esq. 
This is Shirley's Constant Maid, 1640, with a new title, and a false 
ascription as to authorship. See the edition of 1667, below. 

Shirley, James. 1667. 

The Constant Maid : or, Love will finde out the Way. A Com- 
edy. By J. S. As it is now Acted at the new Play-house called 
The Nurser}', in Hatton-Garden. London: Printed by Ja: Cot- 
terel, for Samuel Speed, at the signe of the Rainbow between the 
two Temple-gates. 1667. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 644. c. 70. 

Shirley, James. 1667. 

^ Love Tricks, or, the School of Complements ; As it is now Acted 
by His Royal Highnesse The Duke of York's Servants At the 
Theatre in Little Lincolns-Inne Fields. By J. S. Licens'd May 
24, 1667. Roger L'Estrange. London, Printed by R. T. and sold 
by Thomas Dring Junior, at the White-Lion near Chancery Lane 
in Fleetstreet, 1667. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 644. c. 71. 

Shirley, James. 1692. 

The Traytor. A Tragedy: With Alterations, Amendments, 
and Additions. As it is now Acted at the Theatre Royal, by their 
Majesties Servants. Written by Mr. Rivers. London, Printed for 

[14143 



bibliography: part i 

Richard Parker at the Royal Exchange, and Sam. Briscoe in Co- 
vent Garden, over against Wills CofEee-House. MDCXCII. 

From the copy in the Library of Columbia University, 823 Sh. 6 X; 
identical, as to title-page, with the copy in the British Museum, 643. d. 65. 

For the claims of Mr. Rivers, the Jesuit, consult the preface of this 
edition, and the passage quoted in this Bibliography under "Gentleman's 
Journal," 1692. 

Shirley, James, revised by Johnson. 1712. 

The Wife's Relief: or, The Husband's Cure. A Comedy. As 

it is Acted at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane, By Her Majesty's 

Servants. Written by Mr. Cha. Johnson. — Perjurum fuit in Ma- 

ritum Splendide Mendax. London: Printed for Jacob Tonson, 

at Shakespear's Head over-against Catherine-street in the Strand. 

1712. ^'''^^^ 

From the copy in the Library of Columbia University, B 824 J 62. 
This is a revision of Shirley's The Gamester, 1637. Cf. Garrick's re- 
vision. The Gamesters, 1758. 

Shirley, James. i744- 

The Gamester. A Comedy. By Mr. James Shirley. 
Being pp. gy—iyS in Dodsley^s 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. Volume the Ninth. Lon- 
don: .. . M.DCCXLIV. 

Shirley, James. 1744- 

The Bird in a Cage. A Comedy. By Mr. James Shirley. 
Being pp. i'jg—252 in Dodsley's 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. Volume the Ninth. Lon- 
don: .. , M.DCCXLIV. 

Shirley, James. i744- 

Love Will find out the Way. An Excellent Comedy. By T. B. 
Being pp. gs—iyo in Dodsley^s 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. Volume the Twelfth. Lon- 
don: ,. . M.DCCXLIV. 

C4153 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

S., J. (Not James Shirley.) I744. 

Andromana : or, The Merchant's Wife. A Tragedy. By J. S. 

Being pp. iyi—241 in Dodsley^s 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. Volume the Eleventh. Lon- 
don: .. , M.DCC.XLIV. 

Shirley, James. 1750. 

St. Patrick for Ireland. A Tragi-Comedy. First Acted By His 
Majesty's Company of Comedians in the Year 1639. Written by 
James Shirley, Esq; To which is prefix'd. An Account of the 
Author, and his Works : And an Abstract of The Life of St. Pat- 
rick: Collected from the best Historians. Dublin: Printed, and 
Sold by the Editor W. R. Chetwood, in the Four-court-marshal- 
sea; Messrs. G. and A, Ewing, P. Wilson, and H. Hawker, in 
Dame-street ; G. Faulkner, and A. Long, in Essex-street ; J. Hoey, 
in Skinner-row; and J. Esdall, on Cork-hill, Booksellers. 
MDCCL. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 11775. b. 61. 

Shirley, James. i75i. 

St. Patrick for Ireland. A Tragi-Comedy. First Acted By 
His Majesty's Company of Comedians, in the Year 1639. Writ- 
ten by James Shirley, Esq; To which is prefix'd. An Account of 
the xAuthor, and his Works: And an Abstract of The Life of St. 
Patrick, Collected from the best Historians. Dublin printed : Lon- 
don re-printed ; . . . M.DCC.LI. (Price Six-pence.) 

From the copy in the British Museum: 1346. b. 3. 

Shirley, James. i754- 

The Arcadia a Pastoral. Written by James Shirley And acted 
at the Phoenix in Drur}--Lane, in the Year 1640: Founded on the 
same Story with the New Tragedy, call'd Philoclea, Now acting 
at the Theatre Royal in Covent-Garden. — Arcades Ambo, Et can- 
tare Pares. London: Printed and sold by W. Reeve, in Fleet- 
Street. M.DCC.LI V. (Price One Shilling.) 
From the copy in the British Museum: 1346. d. 17. 

[4i6n 



bibliography: part i 

Shirley, James, revised by Garrick. 1758. 

The Gamesters: A Comedy alter'd from Shirley. As it is per- 

form'd by His Majesty's servants at the Theatre-Royal in Drury- 

Lane. London: Printed for J. and R. Tonson, in the Strand. 

MDCCLVIII. (Price One Shilling.) 

The play is prefaced with the following "Advertisement": 
"In the year 171 1, Mr. Charles Johnson alter'd The Gamester, written 
originally by Shirley, into a Comedy which he call'd The Wife's Relief, 
or The Husband's Cure. In this play he retain'd Shirley's underplot of 
Leonora, Violante, and Beaumont, which has no necessary dependence 
upon the principal action, and has therefore been generally censur'd as 
impertinent; nor has it, separately consider'd, any excellence to attone 
for that defect. The editor of The Gamesters, as it is now a second time 
alter'd from Shirley, will not presume to oflFer any objections to the altera- 
tions and additions which Mr. Johnson has been pleas'd to make. It 
will be sufficient for him to inform the reader that he has nothing in 
common with Johnson but what both he and Johnson have in common with 
Shirley. The characters of Barnacle, and the Nephew, which were be- 
fore unconnected with the principal action, are now interwoven with it: 
what alterations and additions have been now made, will be better known 
by a comparison of this play with the original, and are, with great defer- 
ence, submitted to the candor of the public." 

Shirley, James. 1780. 

The Bird in a Cage. 
Being pp. igi—2gy in Dodsley^s 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. . . .The Second Edition, 
. . . Volume Vlll. London, . . . MDCCLXXX. 

Shirley, James. 1780. 

The Gamester. 
Being pp. 1—108 in Dodsley's 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. . . . The Second Edition, 
. . . Volume IX. London, . . . MDCCLXXX. 

S., J. (Not James Shirley.) 1780. 

Andromana. 

Being pp. 1—77 in Dodsley's 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. . . . The Second Edition, 
. . . Volume XL London, . . . MDCCLXXX. 

1:4173 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley, James, revised by Garrick. 1792. 

The Gamesters. A Comedy as altered from Shirley and C. John- 
son. Adapted for Theatrical Representation, as performed at the 
Theatres-Royal, Drury-Lane and Covent Garden . . . London: 
. . . John Bell . . . M DCC XCII. 

In: 

Bell's British Theatre . . . Vol. VI. . . . 

Shirley, James. 1793. 

The Royal Master, A Comedy. Written by James Shirley, 
Gentleman. — Fas extra queaere regna. London: Printed 1638, 
Re-printed 1793, by T. Wilkins, Aldermanbury. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 11777. cc. 2(2). 

Shirley, James. 1793. 

The Maid's Revenge. A Tragedy. Written by James Shirley, 
Gentleman. London. Printed 1639, Re-Printed 1793, by T. 
Wilkins, Aldermanbury. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 11777. cc. 2(1). 

Shirley, James, revised by Sheil, R. L. 181 9. 

Evadne; or. The Statue: A Tragedy, in Five Acts: As per- 
formed at the Theatre Royal, Covent-Garden. By Richard Sheil, 
Esq. Second Edition. London . . . 1819. 

"The Author has employed a part of the fable of Shirley's Traytor, 
in the construction of his plot. In that tragedy, a kinsman and favorite 
of the Duke of Florence contrives to excite in him a dishonourable passion 
for the sister of a Florentine nobleman, as the means of procuring the 
murder of the Duke by the hand of the injured brother, and thus opening 
the way for his own elevation to the throne. To that extent only, the 
plot of this tragedy is derived from Shirley. The incidents, situations, 
distribution, characters, and language, (such as they are), the Author 
hopes he may be pardoned for observing, are his own." (Preface, a 2.) 

Shirley, James. 1833. 

The Dramatic Works and Poems of James Shirley, now first 
collected; with notes by the late William Giiford, Esq., and addi- 
tional notes, and some account of Shirley and his writings, by the 

1:4183 



bibliography: part i 

Rev. Alexander Dyce. In six volumes. Vol. I. Containing Some 
Account of Shirley and His Writings. Commendatory Verses on 
Shirley. Love Tricks, or the School of Complement. The Maid's 
Revenge. The Brothers. The Witty Fair One. The Wedding. 
London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, MD CCC XXXIII. 

. . . Vol. II. Containing: The Grateful Servant. The Trai- 
tor. Love's Cruelty. Love in a Maze. The Bird in a Cage. 
Hyde Park. . . . 

. . . Vol. III. Containing: The Ball. The Young Admiral. 
The Gamester. The Example. The Opportunity. The Coro- 
nation. . . . 

. . . Vol. IV. Containing : The Lady of Pleasure. The Royal 
Master. The Duke's Mistress. The Doubtful Heir. St. Patrick 
for Ireland. The Constant Maid. The Humorous Courtier. . . . 

. . . Vol. V. Containing: The Gentleman of Venice. The 
Politician. The Imposture. The Cardinal. The Sisters. The 
Court Secret. . . . 

. . . Vol. VI. Containing: Honoria and Mammon. Chabot, 

Admiral of France. The Arcadia. The Triumph of Peace. A 

Contention for Honour and Riches. The Triumph of Beauty. 

Cupid and Death. The Contention of Ajax and Ulysses, &c. 

Poems. . . . 

This is the only complete collection of the plays and poems of Shirley. 
For reviews, see under The American Quarterly Revieio and The 
Quarterly Revieiv. 

Shirley, James. 1872. 

The Traitor. 
Being pp. 505-528 in: 

The Works of the British Dramatists . . . [Edited] by John 
S. Keltie . . . Edinburgh . . . 1872. 

Shirley, James. 1872. 

The Brothers. 
Being pp. 528~54g in : 

The Works of the British Dramatists . . . [Edited] By John 
S. Keltie . . . Edinburgh . . . 1872. 

[419] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley, James. i 888 [ ?] . 

The Mermaid Series. James Shirley. With an Introduction 

by Edmund Gosse, M.A., Clark Lecturer at Trinity College, 

Cambridge. ''I lie and dream of your full Mermaid wine." — 

Beaumont. London: T. Fisher Unwin. New York: Charles 

Scribner's Sons, [n.d.] 

Contents: James Shirley. The Witty Fair One. The Traitor. Hyde 
Park. The Lady of Pleasure. The Cardinal. The Triumph of Peace. 
For comment on the Introduction, see under "Gosse, Edmund." 

Shirley, James, (and Chapman, George). 1906. 

Publications of the University of Pennsylvania. Series in Phi- 
lology and Literature. Volume X. The Tragedie of Chabot 
Admirall of France. Written by George Chapman and James 
Shirley. Reprinted from the Quarto of 1639. Edited with an 
Introduction and Notes by Ezra Lehman, Sometime Harrison Fel- 
low in English, University of Pennsylvania. Published for the Uni- 
versity, Philadelphia, 1906. The John C. Winston Co., Publica- 
tion Agents, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Shirley, James: (and Chapman, George.) 1910. 

The Tragedy of Chabot, Admiral of France. 

Being pp. 2^3-337 in: 

The Plays and Poems of George Chapman. The Tragedies. 
Edited with inti-oductions and notes by Thomas Marc Parrott, 
Ph.D., Professor of English Literature at Princeton University. 
London: George Routledge & Sons, Limited. New York: E. P. 
Button k Co. [19 10]. 

Shirley, James. 1911. 

The Lady of Pleasure. 

Being pp. 8oo-S2g in : 

The Chief Elizabethan Dramatists excluding Shakespeare. Se- 
lected plays . . . edited ... by William Allan Neilson, Ph.D., 
Professor of English, Harvard University. Boston and New York 
. . . 1911. 

1:420:] 



bibliography: part i 

Shirley, James. 191 i. 

The Cardinal. 

Being pp. 830-85 3 in : 

The Chief Elizabethan Dramatists excluding Shakespeare. Se- 
lected Plays . . . edited ... by William Allan Neilson, Ph.D., 
Professor of English, Harvard University. Boston and New York 
. . . 1911. 

Shirley, James. 1911. 

Der konigliche Meister (The Royal Master). Schauspiel in 
fiinf Akten von James Shirley, (i 596-1 666.) tJbersetzt von J. 
Schipper. . . . 

Being pp. 363-445 in: 

James Shirley, sein Leben und seine Werke. Nebst einer Uber- 
setzung seines Dramas "The Royal Master," von J. Schipper. . . . 
Wien und Leipzig: Wilhelm Braumiiller . . . 1911. 

For annotation, see under "Schipper, J." 

Shirley, James. 1914. 

James Shirley. The Royal Master. Edited with Critical Essay 
and Notes by Sir Adolphus William Ward, Litt.D., F.B.A., 
Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge. 

Being pp. 545-^52 in : 

Representative English Comedies . . . [edited by] . . . 
Charles Mills Gayley . . . Volume III. . . . New York, . . . 
1914. 



[420 



Part II 

WORKS CONTAINING REFERENCES TO SHIRLEY, 
ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY BY AUTHORS 

American Quarterly Review. 

An anonymous review entitled: 

The Dramatic Works and Poems of James Shirley ... by the 
late William Gifford . . . and . . . the Rev. Alexander Dyce. 

Being pp. 103-166 in : 

The American Quarterly Review. Vol. XVI. September & 
December, 1834. Philadelphia: Key and Biddle, 23 Minor Street. 
T. K. Collins & Co., Printers. 1834. 

This review is rarely more than a pleasing summary of the plays, 
elaborated with extensive extracts. The reviewer displays little know- 
ledge of dramatic art, or of the history of the English drama, or of the 
social conditions which Shirley's comedies of manners were intended to 
depict. Of The Cardinal, indeed, he gives (pp. 158-165) a fairly dis- 
criminating critiqne; but, for the most part, he confines his critical dis- 
cussions to a commendation of the poetry and a condemnation of the 
immorality of the plays of Shirley. Of the condemnation, the following 
extract is typical : 

"The Maid's Revenge ... is reprehensible, in a high degree, for its 
extravagance and grossness; and some surprise is naturally felt on perus- 
ing it, that a Reverend personage should have been the instrument of 
ushering it into public notice. This remark, indeed, may be extended to 
the editorship of the whole. Few, if any, of the pieces contained in these 
volumes, are such as may be considered to be perfectly in keeping with 
the clerical gown." (p. 104.) 

Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare-Papers, An. 
(Anon.) 
See Chalmers, George. 

[422;] 



bibliography: part ii 

Arber, Edward. 

For An English Garner, . . . 1897, containing Three to One, 
see under Peeke, Richard. 

For A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers, 
. . . Edited by Edward Arber . . . 1877, see under Station- 
ers' Register. 

Baker, D. E. 

Biographia Dramatica; or a Companion to the Playhouse . . . 

Originally compiled, to the year 1764, by David Erskine Baker. 

Continued thence ... by Isaac Reed, F.A.S. and . . . Stephen 

Jones. In three volumes. Vol.1. — Part II. London, . . . 1812. 

The sketch of James Shirley, pp. 666-66%^ is, for the most part, plagiar- 
ized from Wood. A few touches come from Phillips, Farmer, and others. 
It offers little that is original except its errors. 

Bancroft, Thomas. 

Two Bookes of Epigrammes and Epitaphs. Dedicated to the 
two top-branches of Gentry: Sir Charles Shirley, Baronet, and 
William Davenport, Esquire. Written By Thomas Bancroft. 
London ; Printed by I. Okes, for Matthew Walbancke, and are to 
be sold at his shop in Grayes-Inne-gate. 1639. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 1077. b. 15. 

Brooke, J. M. S., and Hallen, A. W. C. 

For The Transcript of the Registers of ... S. Mary Wool- 
church . , . ^ see under St. Mary Woolchurch. 

Brydges, S. E. 

Censura Literaria. Containing titles, abstracts, and opinions of 
old English books, with original disquisitions, articles of biography, 
and other literary antiquities. By Samuel Egerton Brydges, Esq. 
Volume II. London: . . . 1806. 

Volume II, p. 382, presents an alleged transcript of the title-page of 
the lost Eccho, or the Infortunate Lovers, 1618. The entry reads: 

"Art. 26. Echo, or the Infortunate Lovers, a poem, by James Sherley, 

1:4233 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Cant, in Art. Bacc. Lond. i6i8. 8vo. Primum hunc Arethusa, mihi concede 

laborem. 

"From a Ms. note to Astle's copy of Wood's Athena." 

See also Volume vi, pages i and 25. Cf. edition of 1815, 11, 381-387. 



BULLEN, A. H. 

A Collection of Old English Plays. In Four Volumes. Edited 
by A. H. Bullen. Vol. II. Privately printed by Wyman & Sons, 
Great Queen Street, Lincoln's-Inn Fields, London, 1883. 

In Volume 11, pp. 1-99, Bullen reprints the old play of Dicke of Devon- 
shire, which Fleay has since attempted to identify with Shirley's lost play, 
The Brothers of 1626. 

In the same volume, p. 315 et. seq., Bullen attempts to prove that the 
play which he reprints under the title Captain Underwit is by Shirley. 
The play is really The Country Captain by William Cavendish, Duke of 
Newcastle. See Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, n, 283-284. 

Cambridge History of English Literature. 

For the half-chapter on Shirley, see Neilson, W. A. 

Campbell, T. 

Specimens of the British Poets; with biographical and critical 
notices, and an essay on English Poetry. By Thomas Campbell. 
In seven volumes. Vol. I. Essay on English Poetry. London: 
John Murray, Albemarle-Street, 18 19. 

In Volume i^ pp. 225-232, Campbell gives cordial but, on the whole, 
discriminating praise to Shirley, illustrated with four pages of extracts 
from his works. 

In Volume iv, pp. 1-62, he gives a brief notice of Shirley and long 
extracts from The Cardinal, The Royal Master, The Grateful Servant, 
The Doubtful Heir, The Lady of Pleasure, and Chabot. 

Chalmers, George. (Anon.) 

An Apology for the Believers in the Shakspeare-Papers, which 
were exhibited in Norfolk-Street. . . . London : . . . 1 797. 

Note V, pp. 513-514, is the Lord Chamberlain's letter of June 10, 1637, 
"from a MS. book in his office." 

Note IV, pp. 515-516, is the list of plays belonging to the Cockpit, 
August 10, 1639. 



1:4243 



bibliography: part ii 

Chambers, E. K. 

Plays of the King's Men in 1 641, by E. K. Chambers. 

Being pp. 364-369 in: 

Collections Parts IV & V. The Malone Society. 191 1. 

A letter from the Earl of Essex, Lord Chamberlain, to the Stationers' 
Company forbidding the publication of The Doubtful Heir, The Impos- 
ture, The Brothers, and other plays belonging to the King's Men, August 
7, 1 641. 

Chetwood, W. R. 

A General History of the Stage; (More Particularly the Irish 

Theater) . . . by W. R. Chetwood . . . Dublin: . . . M DCC 

XLIX. 

Pages 51-52 present a brief account of John Ogilby's theater in War- 
berg Street, Dublin, 1635-1641. 

ClBBER, ThEOPHILUS. 

The Lives of the Poets of Great Britain and Ireland. Compiled 
from ample Materials scattered in a Variety of Books, and espe- 
cially from the MS. Notes of the late ingenious Mr. Coxeter and 
others, collected for this Design by Mr. Cibber and other hands. 
Vol. II. London: Printed for R. Griffiths, at the Dunciad in St. 
Paul's Church-Yard. MD CC LIII. 

This work, according to opinions now accepted, was the labor not of 
Theophilus Cibber but, chiefly, of one Robert Shiels. Mr. Cibber's con- 
tribution was merely his notoriety (he was then in jail) and perhaps some 
slight revision. The account of Shirley, Volume ii, pp. 26-32, is a delight- 
fully imaginative paraphrase of that by Wood. 

Clutterbuck, Robert. 

The History and Antiquities of the County of Hertford; com- 
piled from the best printed Authors and Original Records pre- 
served in public repositories and private collections. ... By Rob- 
ert Clutterbuck, of Watford, Esq., F.S.A. Volume the First. 
London: . . . 1815. 

In Volume i, p. 48, Clutterbuck gives some account of the Edward the 
Sixth Grammar School at St. Albans and, in a foot-note, a list of the 

1:4253 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

schoolmasters in which appears for the year 1623 the name of James 
Sherley. In the same volume, p. 83 et seq., Clutterbuck gives a bio- 
graphical sketch of Shirley, plagiarized from Wood. 

Collier, J. P. 

The History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of Shake- 
speare: and Annals of the Stage to the Restoration. By J. Payne 
Collier, Esq., F.S.A. Volume the second. London: . . . MD- 
CCCXXXI. 

The "Annals of the Stage," which constitute pp. 1-119 of Volume 11, 
include extracts from Herbert's office-book and other interesting docu- 
ments. Among these are to be noted: an extract from the diary of Sir 
Humphrey Mildmay, n, 70, note; a letter of the Lord Chamberlain of 
June 10, 1637, n, 83-84, note; the Cockpit list of Aug. 10, 1639, 11, 92, note; 
and the appointment of Davenant to the management of the Cockpit in 
place of W. Beeston, n, loi, note. 

DiBDiN, Charles, the elder. 

A Complete History of the Stage, written by Mr. Dibdin. The 
players cannot keep counsel; they'll tell all. Vol. IV. London. 
Printed for the author and sold by him at his warehouse, Leicester 
Place, Leicester Square, [n.d.] 

This work is assigned by the Dictionary of National Biography, xv, 5, 
to the year 1795. The British Museum catalogue dates it "[1800]." 

Dibdin's nine pages upon Shirley, Volume iv, pp. 38-47, are devoted 
to brief comment, usually unfavorable, upon the several plays. He thinks 
that "tragedy was not the forte of Shirley" (iv, 40), and remarks of The 
Doubtful Heir and The Impostor [sic] that "you always pity him for 
making Fletcher his model" (iv, 44-45). 

DicKE OF Devonshire. 
See BuLLEN, A. H. 

Dictionary of National Biography (DNB.). 
See Ward, A. W. 

DoDSLEY, Robert. 1744. 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. Volume the First. London : 
Printed for R. Dodsley in Pall-Mall. M.DCC.XLIV. 

This, the first edition of Dodslej'^s Old Plays, published in twelve vol- 

1:426:] 



bibliography: part ii 

umes, contains the following plays by Shirley or ascribed to Shirley: The 
Gamester (ix, 97-178) ; The Bird in a Cage (ix, 179-252) ; Andro- 
mana: or, The Merchant's Wife. A Tragedy. By J. S. (xi, 171-241); 
Lo've Will find out the Way. An Excellent Comedy. By T. B. (xii, 95- 
170; from the edition of i66i). It contains also A Dialogue on Plays 
and Players (xi, i-xxxvii) by James Wright. 

DoDSLEY, Robert. 1780. 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. In Twelve Volumes. The 
Second Edition, corrected and collated with the Old Copies. With 
Notes Critical and Explanatory. Volume VIII. London, . . . 
MDCCLXXX. 

Volume vni, pp. 191-297, reprints Shirley's The Bird in a Cage, with 
a sketch of Shirley based on Wood prefixed, and a reprint of the title- 
page of 1633 appended. 

Volume IX, pp. 1-108, reprints Shirley's The Gamester, with a tran- 
script of the title-page of 1637 appended. 

Volume XI, pp. 1-77, reprints Andromana, by J. S., with a transcript 
of the title-page of 1660 appended. 

Volume XII, pp. 337-363, reprints James Wright's Historia Histrionica. 

DoDSLEY, Robert. 1825. 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. In twelve volumes. Vol. I. 
A New Edition : with additional notes and corrections, by the late 
Isaac Reed, Octavius Gilchrist, and the editor [J. Payne Collier]. 
London. . . . M DCCC XXV. 

From this edition, all plays by Shirley were omitted in the expectation 
of the early appearance of Gifford's Shirley. The edition retains, how- 
ever, Wright's Historia Histrionica, in Vol. i, pp. cxxxix-clxix. 

DoDSLEY, Robert. 1876. 

A Select Collection of Old English Plays. Originally published 
by Robert Dodsley in the year 1744. Fourth Edition, now first 
chronologically arranged, revised and enlarged with the notes of 
all the commentators, and new notes by W. Carew Hazlitt. Vol- 
ume the fifteenth. London: . . . 1876. 

This edition of 1876 omits all plays by Shirley — unless we so classify 
Andromana: or the Merchant's Wife. . . . By J. S. It contains, however 
(xv, 399-431), a reprint of James Wright's Historia Histrionica, 1699 
(q.v.). 

1:4273 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

DowNES, John. 

Roscius Anglicanus, or an historical review of the stage from 
1660 to 1706. By John Downes. A fac-simile reprint of the rare 
original of 1708. With an historical preface by Joseph Knight. 
London. . . . 1886. 

As Downes explains in his preface, his official connection with the 
theatrical companies of the Restoration and the access that he had to the 
records of the several theaters, make his account of the stage from 1660 
to 1706 particularly valuable. Four passages that refer to plays by Shir- 
ley, I quote at length: 

"The Company [his Majesty's Company of Comedians] being thus Com- 
pleat, they open'd the New Theatre in Drury-Lane, on Thursday in Easter 
Week, being the 8th Day of April 1663, with The Humorous Lieutenant 
[p. 3]. . . . These being their Principal Old Stock Plays, yet in this In- 
terval from the Day they begun, there were divers others Acted, . . . 
The Opportunity, The Example, . . . The Cardinal, [p. 8] . . . The 
Traytor, . . . These being Old Plays, were Acted but now and then; yet, 
being well Perform'd, were very Satisfactory to the Town" [p. 9]. 

"Next follows the Plays Writ by the then Modern Poets, ... [p. 9] 
yet they Acted divers others . . . as . . . Love in a Maze" [p. 15]. 

"After this [in 1666] the Company [of Sir William Davenant, in 
Lincoln's Inn Fields] Reviv'd Three Comedies of Mr. Sherly's, viz. The 
Grateful Servant, The Witty Fair One, The School of Complements. . . . 
These Plays being perfectly well Perform'd; especially Dulcino the 
Grateful Servant, being Acted by Mrs. Long; and the first time she 
appear'd in Man's Habit, prov'd as Beneficial to the Company, as several 
succeeding new Plays" [p. 27]. 

"Upon the 9th of April, 1705, Captain Vantbrugg open'd his new 
Theatre in the Hay-Market. . . . The first Play Acted there, was The 
Gamester" [p. 48J. 

Dryden, John. 

The Globe Edition. The Poetical Works of John Dryden. 

Edited with a memoir, revised text, and notes, by W. D. Christie, 

M.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge. . . . London. 1908. 

In MacFlecknoe, 1682, Dryden (Globe edition, p. 144, lines 29-32) 
makes Flecknoe say to Shadwell : 

Heywood and Shirley were but types of thee. 

Thou last great prophet of tautology. 

Even I, a dunce of more renown than they. 

Was sent before but to prepare thy way. 
And at the coronation of Shadwell (p. 146, lines 98-103), 

No Persian carpets spread the imperial way. 

But scattered limbs of mangled poets lay; 

[:428] 



bibliography: part ii 

From dusty shops neglected authors come, 
Martyrs of pies. . . . 

Much Heywood, Shirley, Ogleby there lay. 
But loads of Shadwell almost choked the way. 

Dyce, Alexander. 

Some Account of Shirley and his Writings. 

Being pp. iii—lxvi in: 

The Dramatic Works and Poems of James Shirley, now first 
collected; with notes by the late William Gifford, Esq., and addi- 
tional notes, and Some Account of Shirley and his Writings, by 
the Rev. Alexander Dyce. In Six Volumes. Vol. I. . . . Lon- 
don: .. . MDCCCXXXIIL 

This account by Dyce, based upon the sketch by Wood, Malone's ex- 
tracts from Herbert's office-book, the works of Shirley, and such miscella- 
neous sources as the register of Merchant Taylors' School and the burial 
records of St. Giles in the Fields, is still, after eighty years, a surprisingly 
accurate and complete statement of the little that we know of Shirley's 
life. 

Dyce, Alexander ; and Gifford, William. 

For reviews of their edition of The Dramatic Works and Poems 
of James Shirley . . . 1833, j^^.' 
American Quarterly Review. 
Quarterly Review. 

English Stage, Some Account of the. (Anon.) 
See Genest, Rev. John. 

Farmer, Richard. 

An Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare: addressed to Joseph 
Cradock, Esq; By Richard Farmer, M.A., Fellow of Emmanuel- 
College, Cambridge, and of The Society of Antiquaries, London. 
Cambridge: Printed by J. Archdeacon, Printer to the University; 
For W. Thurlbourn & J. Woodyer, in Cambridge; and Sold by 
J. Beecroft, in Pater-noster-Row ; J. Dodsley, in Pall-Mall; and 
T. Cadell in the Strand, London. M.DCC.LXVIL 

From the copy in the British Museum: 641 : e. 27(5). 

To a passage in this Essay, Dyce and Ward attribute the revival of 

1:4293 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Shirley's reputation as a dramatist. See Dyce in Works, i, xi, and Ward 
in DNB., Lii, 129, and in English Dramatic Literature, in, 95. Farmer 
wrote: "Shirley is spoken of with contempt in MacFlecknoe; but his imagi- 
nation is sometimes fine to an extraordinary degree." And then he quoted 
from The Brothers the exquisite description of Jacinta at vespers. 

Farmer, Richard. 

Essay on the Learning of Shakspeare addressed to Joseph 
Cradock, Esq. By Richard Farmer, D.D., Master of Emmanuel 
College, Cambridge, and Principal Librarian of that University. 
London: . . . 1821. 

In this edition, the reference to Shirley is on pp. 37-38. 

Fleay, F. G. 

Annals of the Careers of James and Henry Shirley. 

Being pages 40 5— 414 in: 

Anglia. Zeitschrift fiir Englische Philologie. Herausgegeben 
von Richard Paul Wiilker. Mit einem kritischen Anzeiger. 
Herausgegeben von Moritz Trautmann. VIII Band. Halle a. S. 
Max Niemeyer. 1885. 

This is an important but unreliable contribution to the biography of 
Shirley. Among the typographical errors, I note the following: 

Page 406, line 17: The date when Love Tricks was entered in the Sta- 
tioners' Register should be 1630/31, not 1630 unless marked "Old Style." 

Page 406, line 20: The date when The Duke was licensed should be 
May 17, not May 7. 

Page 407, line 14: The date when The Bird in a Cage was entered 
should be March 19, not March 10. 

Page 408, line 47: The date when The Ball and Chabot were entered 
should be October 24, not December 24. 

Page 409, line 7: The date when The Humorous Courtier was entered 
should be July 29, not July 20. 

Page 409, line 17: The date when Looke to the Ladie was entered 
should be March 11, not March 10. 

Page 412, line 20: The date when St. Patrick was entered should be 
April 28, not October 28. 

Page 412, passim: "Williams and Egglestone" should read "Williams 
and Egglesfeild." 

Fleay, F. G. 

A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama. 1 559-1 642. 

1:4303 



bibliography: part ii 

By Frederick Gard Fleay, M.A., author of "The Life and Work 
of Shakespeare," "A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559- 
1642," Etc. In two volumes. Volume II. London. . . . 189 1. 

Pages 233-247 are devoted to James Shirley. The account is valuable; 
but its value is much lessened by numerous misprints, among which I 
note the following: 

Page 233, line 28: The date on which The Gamester was entered in the 
Stationers' Register should be November 15, not October 18. 

Page 234, line 15: The date on which The Humorous Courtier was en- 
tered should be July 29, not July 20. 

Page 237, line 18: The date on which The Duke was licensed should 
be May 17, not May 7. 

Page 246, line 5: The date of The Doubtful Heir is, of course, 1652, 
not 1552. 

FoRSYTHE, Robert Stanley. 

The Relations of Shirley's Plays to the Elizabethan Drama. By 
Robert Stanley Forsythe, Ph.D., Sometime University Scholar and 
University Fellow in English, Columbia University. New York. 
Columbia University Press. 1914. . . . 

A most scholarly contribution. 

Genest, Rev. John (Anon.). 

Some Account of the English Stage, from the Restoration in 

1660 to 1830. In ten volumes. . . . Vol. IX. Bath . . . 1832. 

To the student of Shirley, this work is valuable not so much for its 
abstracts of the plots of Shirley's plays as for its record of Shirleian 
revivals. See especially, ix, 541-563; but also, i, 78-79; i, 339-341; i, 

350-351; ", 30-31; ", 491-493; I", 142-144; VI, 399-400. 

Genest worked from first-hand sources, the play-bills and the records 
of the theaters. His Account, in the words of Joseph Knight (DNB., xxi, 
119), is "a work of great labour and research, which forms the basis of 
most exact knowledge concerning the stage. Few books of reference are 
equally trustworthy, the constant investigation to which it has been sub- 
jected having brought to light few errors and none of grave importance." 

Gentleman's Journal. 

The Gentleman's Journal: or the Monthly Miscellany. By 
Way of Letter To a Gentleman in the Country. Consisting of 

1:430 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

News, History, Philosophy, Poetry, Musick, Translations, &c. 
April, 1692. Plus multo tibi debiturus hie est, Quam debet Dom- 
ino suo libellus. Licensed, April 13th, 1692. R. Midgley. Lon- 
don, Printed for Rich. Parker; and are to be Sold by Rich. Bald- 
win, near the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane. 1692. 

From the copy in the British Museum: P. P. 5255. 

On p. 21 occurs the following passage: 

"The Traytor, an old Tragedy, hath not onh' been revived the last 
Month, but also been reprinted with Alterations and Amendments: It was 
supposed to be Shirly's, but he only usher'd it in to the Stage ; The Author 
of it was one Mr. Rivers, a Jesuite, who wrote it in his Confinement in 
Newgate, where he died. It hath always been esteemed a ver\- good 
Play, by the best Judges of Dramatick Writing." 

Gentleman's Magazine. 
See Smith, G. Barnett. 

GiFFORD, William ; and Dyce, Alexander. 

For reviews of their edition of The Dramatic Works and Poems 
of James Shirley . . . 1833, j-ff; 
American Quarterly Review. 
Quarterly Review. 

Glode, O. 

Review of: 

P. Nissen: James Shirley. . . . 1901. 
Being pp. 392-394 in : 

Englische Studien. Organ fiir englische philologie . . . Heraus- 
gegeben von Johannes Hoops. ... 34 band. Leipzig. . . . 1904. 

Gosse, Edmund. 

James Shirley. 

Being pp. vii—xxx in: 

The Mermaid Series. James Shirley, with an introduction by 
Edmund Gosse, M.A., Clark Lecturer at Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge. 'T lie and dream of your full Mermaid wine." — Beau- 
mont. London . . . New York . . . [n.d.] 

Gosse's Introduction is the customarj' sketch, biographical and critical : 

1:432:3 



bibliography: part ii 

a pleasing little article, but marred by a willingness to accept as facts 
the suppositions of any previous writer. To the errors of his predecessors, 
Gosse adds a few of his own, as when he speaks of The Brothers as a 
tragedy, and places The Bird in a Cage before Hyde Park and The Ball, 
forgetful that the date he has given for the former, 1632, is Old Style, 
and should read January 21, 1632/3. 

Herbert, Sir Henry, Master of the Revels. 
See Malone, Edmond. 

Historia Histrionica. (Anon.) 
See Wright, James. 

Hoe^ Robert. 

Catalogue of Books by English Authors who lived before the 
year 1700, forming a part of the Library of Robert Hoe. Volume 
IV. Printed in New York, April 1904. Sold by George H. 
Richmond. 

Pages 151-172 of this catalogue give transcripts of the entire title-pages 
of the original quartos and folios of the plays of Shirley, of which Mr. 
Hoe had an almost complete collection. I have compared these transcripts 
with those which I myself made from the plays in Mr. Hoe's library and 
from the ten that I possess, and have found but one typographical error: 
on page 170, line 1, the date of A Contention for Honour and Riches 
should read "1633" not "1653." 

Hoe, Robert. 

Catalogue of the Library of Robert Hoe of New York . . . 
Part I — L to Z. To be sold by auction beginning on Monday, 
May I, 191 1, by the Anderson Auction Company, . . . New 
York. . . . 

The Shirley items (pp. 513-519) fetched, according to the "Priced 
List" subsequently issued, the following prices: 

3023. The Wedding, 1629 $305.00 

3024. The Grateful Servant, 1630 180.00 

3025. The School of Complement, 1631 . . . . 190.00 

3026. Changes: or. Love in a Maze, 1632 . . . 145.00 

3027. The Bird in a Cage, 1633 175.00 

3028. A Contention for Honour and Riches, 1633 . 105.00 

3029. The Triumph of Peace, 1633, 2d issue . . 90.00 

3030. The Witty Fair One, 1633 185.00 

1:4333 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

3031. The Traitor, 1635 $150.00 

3032. The Example, 1637 150.00 

3033. The Gamester, 1637 105.00 

3034. Hyde Park, 1637 160.00 

3035. The Lady of Pleasure, 1637 105.00 

3036. The Young Admiral, 1637 80.00 

3037. The Duke's Mistress, 1638 200.00 

3038. The Royal Master, 1638, Irish issue . . . 265.00 

3039. The Royal Master, 1638, London issue . , 55.00 

3040. The Maid's Revenge, 1639 160.00 

3041. The Constant Maid, 1640 55-oo 

3042. The Coronation, 1640 180.00 

3043. The Humorous Courtier, 1640 70.00 

3044. Love's Cruelty, 1640 115.00 

3045. The Opportunity, 1640 85.00 

3046. The Arcadia, 1640 200.00 

3047. St. Patrick for Ireland, 1640 205.00 

3048. Six New Plays, 1653 135.00 

3049. Poems, 1646 155.00 

3050. Via ad Latinam Linguam Coraplanata, 1649 . 75-oo 

3051. The Cardinal, 1652 250.00 

3052. The Doubtful Heir, 1652 25.00 

3053. The Gentleman of Venice, 1655 .... 220.00 

3054. The Politician, 1655 80.00 

3055. Honoria and Mammon; The Contention of 

Ajax and Ulysses, 1659 105.00 

3056. The Triumph of Beauty, 1646; Honoria and 

Mammon, 1659; The Contention of Ajax 

and Ulysses, n.d 140.00 

3057. Andromana, by J. S., 1660 100.00 

3058. Love will find out the Way, by T. B., 1661 . 50.00 

3059. The Opportunity, n.d. (sheets of 1640, with 

new imprint) 75-oo 

3060. Dramatic Works, 1833 95-oo 

Hoe, Robert. 

Catalogue of the Library of Robert Hoe of New York . . . 

Part II — L to Z. To be sold by auction beginning on Monday, 

January 15, 19 12, by the Anderson Auction Company, . . . New 

York. . . . 

The Shirley items (p. 488) fetched, according to the "Priced List" sub- 
sequently issued, the following amounts: 

3068. The Wedding, 1633 (2d edition) .... $25.00 

3069. The Grateful Servant, 1637 (2d edition) . . 30.00 

3070. The School of Complement, 1637 (2d edition) . 10.00 

1:4343 



bibliography: part ii 

3071. The Doubtful Heir, 1652 $35.00 

3072. Six New Plays, 1653 50.00 

3073. Honoria and Mammon; The Contention of 

Ajax and Ulysses, 1659 4.00 

Howard, J. J. 
See Visitation of London. 

Hunter, Joseph. 

Chorus Vatum Angllcanorum. Collections concerning the 
Poets and Verse- Writers of the English Nation. By Joseph Hun- 
ter, F. S. A. 1845. Volume HI. 

Pages 417-422 present an ill-digested but extensive body of material, 
biographical, genealogical, and bibliographical, concerning James and 
Henry Shirley. 

HUTTON, W. H. 

University of Oxford. College Histories. S. John Baptist Col- 
lege, by William Holden Hutton, B.D., Fellow, Tutor, and Pre- 
centor, and formerly Librarian, of S. John Baptist College; Ex- 
amining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Ely. London. . . . 1898. 

Hutton's references (pp. 92-93) to Shirley's possible connection with 
the college are based largely upon Wood; but he makes an interesting 
reference to a manuscript book of the reign of Charles I, by a St. John's 
man, Abraham Wright: "In a MS. book of his are some shrewd comments 
on the literature of his day, on the plays of Ben Jonson, Beaumont and 
Fletcher, on the S. John's man Shirley, and on Shakspere, with short 
shrewd comments on the plays" (p. 90). 

KiNGSLEY, Charles. 

Plays and Puritans. 

Being pp. 3—79 in : 

Plays and Puritans and other Historical Essays. By Charles 
Kingsley. London: . . . 1885. . . . 

Othei'wise entitled: 

The Works of Charles Kingsley. Volume XVL Plays and 
Puritans. London. . . . 1885. 

On pp. 53-58, Kingsley discusses Shirley's The Gamester as an exam- 
ple of the immorality of the seventeenth-century drama. 

1:435: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Krapp, G. p. 

The Legend of Saint Patrick's Purgatory: its later literary his- 
tory. A dissertation . . . Johns Hopkins University ... By 
George Philip Krapp. . . . Baltimore, . . . 1900. 

In note 2, p. vi, Krapp is "inclined to think" that Shirley's intended sub- 
ject for the promised second part of St. Patrick for Ireland was St. Pat- 
rick's Purgatory. 

Lamb, Charles. 

Specimens of English Dramatic Poets, who lived about the time 
of Shakspeare. With notes. By Charles Lamb. London: . . . 
1808. 

Lamb quotes at length from Chabot (pp. 453-459), The Maid's Re- 
venge (pp. 459-469), The Politician (pp. 470-472), The Brothers (pp. 
473-480), and The Lady of Pleasure (pp. 481-484). His critical comment 
(P* 459) is as follows: 

"Shirley claims a place amongst the worthies of this period, not so much 
for any transcendent genius in himself, as that he was the last of a great 
race, all of whom spoke nearly the same language, and had a set of 
moral feelings and notions in common. A new language and quite a new 
turn of tragic and comic interest came in with the Restoration." 

Langbaine, Gerard, The Younger. 

An Account of the English Dramatick Poets. Or, Some Ob- 
servations and Remarks On the Lives and Writings, of all those 
that have Publish'd either Comedies, Tragedies, Tragi-Comedies, 
Pastorals, Masques, Interludes, Farces, or Opera's in the English 
Tongue. By Gerard Langbaine. Oxford, Printed by L. L. for 
George West, and Henry Clements. An. Dom. 1691. 

From the copy in the British Museum: 01 1795. ee. i. 

Langbaine's account of Shirley (pp. 474-485) shows little influence of 
Dryden or of Oldham. On the contrary, he opens with praise of Shirley 
that is, at least in part, an echo of Edward Phillips, 1675: "J^^i^s Shir- 
ley . . . One of such Incomparable parts that he was the Chief of the 
Second-rate Poets: and by some has been thought even equal to Fletcher 
himself." Langbaine goes on to say, of Shirley's plays: "Of these I have 
seen four since my Remembrance, two of which were acted at the King's 
House ; and the other two presented at the Duke's Theatre, in Little Lin- 
colns-Inn Fields: viz. Court Secret, Chances [sic], Grateful Servant, 
School of Compliments [sic]." He gives a paragraph to each of Shirley's 

1:4361 



bibliography: part ii 

plays; and concludes his account by quoting with approval four lines by 
Hall to "the surviving Honour and Ornament of the English Scene: 

"Yet this I dare assert, when Men have nam'd 
Johnson (the Nation's Laureat,) the fam'd 
Beaumont, and Fletcher, he, that cannot see 
Shirley, the fourth, must forfeit his best Eye." 

Langbaine, Gerard, the Younger, revised by Charles 

GiLDON. 

The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets. 
Also An Exact Account of all the Plays that were ever yet Printed 
in the English Tongue; their Double Titles, the Places where 
Acted, the Dates when Printed, and the Persons to whom Dedi- 
cated; with Remarks and Observations on most of the said Plays. 
First begun by Mr. Langbain, improv'd and continued down to 
this Time, by a Careful Hand. London: . . . 1699. 

Pages 131-134 are a revision and condensation of the sketch in Lang- 
baine's Account of 1691. Significant is the change of tone: 

"James Shirley . . . was once of Grays-Inn, and Servant to the King, 
and a Poet esteemed in the Days of Charles the First. Mr. Langbain 
gives him no small Praise, and indeed he does to most of the indifferent 
Poets, so that shou'd a Stranger to our Poets read him, they wou'd make 
an odd Collection of our English Writers, for they wou'd be sure to take 
Heywood, Shirley, &c, and leave Dryden, &c." (p. 131.) 

Lawrence, W. J. 

The Elizabethan Playhouse and Other Studies by W. J. Law- 
rence. Illustrated. Shakespeare Head Press. Stratford-upon- 
Avon. MCMXII. 

For the staging of The Doubtful Heir and The Triumph of Peace, see 
pp. 53, 100-103. 

Lehman, Ezra. 

The Tragedies of Chapman derived from French Historical 
Material. 

Being pp. SS? in : 

Publications of the University of Pennsylvania. Series in Phi- 
lology and Literature. Volume X. The Tragedie of Chabot, 

1:4373 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Admlrall of France. Written by George Chapman and James 
Shirley. Reprinted from the Quarto of 1639. Edited with an 
Introduction and Notes by Ezra Lehman, sometime Harrison Fel- 
low in English, University of Pennsylvania. Published for the 
University. Philadelphia, 1906. ... 

Pages 24-28 excellently summarize the evidence concerning the col- 
laboration of Chapman and Shirley in Chabot. 



Malone, Edmond. 

History of the English Stage. 

In Volume I, Part II of: 

The Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare, in ten volumes; 

... to which are added ... an historical account of the English 

stage; ... by Edmond Malone. . . . London; . . . MD CC XC. 

For the student of Shirley, Malone's History is especially important for 
its summaries and extracts from the lost office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, 
Master of the Revels. 

Malone, Edmond. 

An Enlarged History of the Stage. 

In: 

The Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare with the correc- 
tions and illustrations of various commentators: comprehending a 
Life of the Poet and an Enlarged History of the Stage, by the late 
Edmond Malone. With a new glossarial index. . . . Vol. III. 
London: . . . 1821. 

This edition, like that of 1790, contains Malone's extracts from the no 
longer extant office-book of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels. 
For Shirley, see especially in, 231-242. For the Lord Chamberlain's let- 
ter to the Stationers' Company, June 10, 1637, see pp. 160-161, note. For the 
Cockpit list of August 10, 1639, see pp. 159-160, note. For post-Restora- 
tion revivals of Shirley, see pp. 272-276. In the list of plays by Shirley 

II licensed by Sir Henry Herbert, one misprint occurs: the date of the li- 

'' censing of The Gentleman of Venice should be 1639, not 1629. That the 

error in this edition is typographical appears both from the fact that the 
date appears correctly in Malone's edition of 1790 and from the fact that, 

. in a list chronologically arranged, this "1629" stands between "1638" and 

P "1640." 

[4383 



bibliography: part ii 

Merchant Taylors' School. 
MS. Register. 

The book is without title-page; but upon p. i appears the heading: 
"The Names of all those who have been Chief Masters of Merchant Tay- 
lors School in the Parish of Laurence Pountney, London, w^h began Anno 
Domini 1561, Elisabethae R. 3'°, with the time of their Entrance upon and 
Continuance in the place"; and upon p. 2 appears the heading: "The 
Register of the Schooles Probation." 

References to Shirley appear in the tables for December 11, 1608; 
March 11, September 11, and December n, 1609; March 11, September 
II, and December 11, 1610; March 11, September 11, and December 11, 
1611; and March 11, 1612. The pages whence references were taken for 
this monograph were all in a good state of preservation, the writing 
good and clear, and all figures distinctly made. Unfortunately several 
gaps occur throughout, owing to missing pages. 

MOULTON, C. W. 

The Library of Literary Criticism of English and American 

Authors. Volume II. 1 639-1 729. Edited by Charles Wells 

Moulton assisted by a corps of able contributors. The Moulton 

Publishing Company. Buffalo, New York. 1901. 

The biographical and critical account of Shirley, pp. 189-193, is an 
extensive but undiscriminating compilation from some twenty "authorities." 

Murray, J. T. 

English Dramatic Companies, 15 58-1 642. By John Tucker 
Murray, M.A. Sometime Edward William Hooper Fellow of 
Harvard University. Volume I. London Companies, 1 558-1 642. 
London: . . . 1910. 

This work includes excellent accounts of the three companies with 
which Shirley was successively connected : the Queen's men of the Phoenix 
in Drury Lane, the later company of the same name at Salisbury Court, 
and the King's men of the Black Friars and Globe theaters. 

Nation, The. 

An anonymous and untitled paragraph recording a perform- 
ance of Shirley's The Opportunity at the University of Illinois, 
June I, 1906. 

On page 491 of: 

The Nation. A Weekly Journal devoted to Politics, Literature, 

1:439] 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Science & Art. Volume LXXXII, from January i, 1906, to June 
30, 1906. New York. New York Evening Post Company. 190&. 

The paragraph is as follows: 

"A performance of James Shirley's The Opportunity, the first, it is be- 
lieved, since the seventeenth century, was given by the members of the 
Alethenai and Philomathean Literary Societies of the University of Illi- 
nois on Friday evening, June i. The stage, writes a correspondent, which 
was built on the south campus, was enclosed at the back and sides with 
green cloth, with trees showing above. The different scenes were indi- 
cated by appropriate properties, brought in and off by young men in crim- 
son velvet doublets ; and most of the entrances and exits were made from 
the sides. To atone for the absence of scenery, which was hardly felt, 
the costumes were markedly handsome. The text used was about three 
quarters the length of the original, cuts being required both by the change 
of taste and by the time element. The play combines romantic intrigue, 
based upon mistaken identity, with splendid low comedy; and, in spite of 
its many conventionalities, it scored a complete success. The plot was 
unfolded with absolute clearness, even to those unfamiliar with the story. 
The acting was fully up to the standard set by the performance of Friar 
Bacon last year." 



Neilson, W. A. 

Ford and Shirley. By W. A. Neilson, M.A. (Edinburgh), 
Ph.D. (Harvard), Professor of English in Harvard University. 

Being Chapter VIII in: 

The Cambridge History of English Literature. Edited by A. 
W. Ward, Litt.D., F.B.A., Master of Peterhouse, and A.R. 
Waller, M.A., Peterhouse. Volume VI. The Drama to 1642. 
Part II. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Cambridge, Eng- 
land: University Press. 19 10. 

Neilson's contribution is a readable and scholarly account of Shirley's 
life and works. 

Neilson, W. A. 

The Chief Elizabethan Dramatists excluding Shakespeare. Se- 
lected Plays . . . edited ... by William Allan Neilson, Ph.D., 
Professor of English, Harvard University. Boston and New Y'ork 
. . . 1911. 

Contents (for Shirley) : The Lady of Pleasure, pp. 800-829; The Car- 

1:4403 



bibliography: part ii 

dinal, pp. 830-853; Notes on these plays, p. 860; Bibliography of Shirley 
(erroneously including Gartner's study of John Shirley), p. 867; Bio- 
graphical sketch, p. 874. 

NiSSEN, P. 

James Shirley. Ein Beitrag zur englischen Litteraturgeschichte. 
Von Oberlehrer Dr. P. Nissen. 

Being pp. 1—26 in: 

Realschule in Eilbeck zu Hamburg. Bericht iiber das Schuljahr 
1900-01. . . . Hamburg, 1901. . . . Progr. Nr. 804. 

This study, which was intended as a biographical introduction to a 
more extensive work, is, on the whole, the most scholarly life of Shirley 
that has yet appeared. I heartily second the words of Glode {Englische 
Studien, xxxiv, 394) : "To the continuation of Nissen's study, which is to 
give a review of Shirley's dramatic works, and to be devoted to the 
consideration of individual plays, and especially to the relation of the 
poet to his sources, we look forward with interest." 

Nissen, P. 

For a review of his James Shirley, see Glode, O. 

Oldham, John. 

The Works of Mr. John Oldham, Together with his Remains. 

London. Printed for H. Hindmarsh, at the Golden Ball in Corn- 

hil, MDCXCVIII. 

In Book in, p. 163, in a poem entitled "A Satyr. The Person of 
Spencer is brought in, Dissuading the Author from the Study of Poetry, 
and shewing how little it is esteem'd and encourag'd in this present Age," 
occur the following lines: 

"How many Poems writ in ancient time, 
Which thy Fore-fathers had in great esteem, 
Which in the crowded Shops bore any rate. 
And sold like News-Books, and Affairs of State, 
Have grown contemptible, and slighter since. 
As Pordage, Fleckno, or the British Prince? 

And so raay'st thou perchance pass up and down, 
And please a while th' admiring Court and Town, 
Who after shalt in Duck-lane Shops be thrown, 
To mould with Silvester and Shirley there, 
And truck for pots of Ale next Stourbridg-Fz'irJ* 

1:440 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Page, William. 

The Victoria History of the County of Hertfordshire edited by 
William Page, F.S.A. Volume Two. London. Archibald Con- 
stable and Company Limited. 1908. 

In the section on "Schools," contributed by A. F. Leach, MA., F.S.A., a 
brief reference to Shirley's head-mastership at St. Albans appears on 
p. 63. 

Parrott, T. M. 

The Tragedy of Chabot : Introduction. 

Being pp. 631—637 in: 

The Plays and Poems of George Chapman. The Tragedies. 
Edited with introductions and notes by Thomas Marc Parrott, 
Ph.D., Professor of English Literature at Princeton University. 
London: George Routledge & Sons, Limited. New York: E. P. 
Button & Co. [19 10]. 

A scholarly discussion of Chapman's sources and of Shirley^s revision. 

Peeke, Richard. 

Three to One. Being an English-Spanish combat performed by 
a Western Gentleman of Tavistock in Devonshire, with an Eng- 
lish quarterstaff, against three Spaniards [at once] with rapiers 
and poniards; at Sherries [Xeres] in Spain, the 15th day of No- 
vember 1625: in the presence of Dukes, Condes, Marquises, and 
other great Dons of Spain ; being the Council of War. The author 
of this book, and the actor in this encounter; R[ichard] Peeke. 
Printed at London for I. T. and are to be sold at his shop. 

Being pp. 621—643 in: 

An English Garner. Ingatherings from our History and Litera- 
ture, by Edward Arber, F.S.A. . . . Volume I. . . . MD CCC 
XCVII. 

This pamphlet is the source of the anonymous play published by Bullen 
as Dicke of Devonshire, which Fleay accounts Shirley's lost play The Bro- 
thers of 1626. 

Pepys, Samuel. 
The Diary of Samuel Pepys . . . transcribed by the late Rev. 

1:4423 



bibliography: part ii 

Mynors Bright, M.A., . . . edited ... by Henry B. Wheatley, 
F.S.A. . . . London . . . 1893 • • • 

Nine volumes, 1893-1899. 

Pepys speaks of attending the following plays by Shirley: October 10, 
1661, The Traitor (11, 112) ; October 2, 1662, The Cardinal (11, 329) ; 
August 18, 1664, The Court Secret (iv, 206-207) ; August 5, 1667, Love 
Tricks, or The School of Complements (vii, 54) ; December 30, 1667, 
Love's Cruelty (vii, 239-240) ; July 11, 1668, Hyde Park (viii, 60). Pepys 
speaks also of attending, on May 21, 1662, The French Dancing Mistress, 
which some editors have sought to identify with the play mentioned by 
Herbert as A Dancing Master, December 10, 1661 (Malone's Shakspere, 
1 821, III, 275), and with Shirley's The Ball, which, in the list appended 
to The Cardinal, 1652, bears the double title, The Ball, or French Dancing 
Master. 



Phillips, Edward. 

Theatrum Poetarum, or A Compleat Collection of the Poets, 

Especially the most Eminent, of all Ages. By Edward Phillips 

. . . London . . . M.DC.LXXV. 

"James Shirly, a just pretender to more than the meanest place among 
the English poets, but most especially for dramatic Poesy, in which he 
hath written both very much ; and for the most part with that felicity that 
by some he is accounted little inferior to Fletcher himself" (p. 80). 

Plays, A Select Collection of Old. (Anon.) 
See Dodsley, Robert. 

Prynne, William. 

Histrio-Mastix. The Players Scovrge, or. Actors Tragaedie, 
Divided into Two Parts. Wherein it is largely evidenced, by 
divers Arguments, by the concurring Authorities and Resolutions 
of sundry texts of Scripture ; of the whole Primitive Church, both 
under the Law and Gospell; of 55 Synodes and Councels; of 71 
Fathers and Christian Writers, before the yeare of our Lord 1200; 
of above 150 foraigne and domestique Protestant and Popish Au- 
thors, since; of 40 Heathen Philosophers, Historians, Poets; of 
many Heathen, many Christian Nations, Republiques, Emperors, 
Princes, Magistrates ; of sundry Apostolicall, Canonicall, Imperiall 



1:4433 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Constitutions; and of our owne English Statutes, Magistrates, 
Vniversities, Writers, Preachers: 

That popular Stage-playes (the very Pompes of the Divell 
which we renounce in Baptisme, if we beleeve the Fathers) are 
sinfull, heathenish, lewde, ungodly Spectacles, and most pernicious 
Corruptions; condemned in all ages, as intolerable Mischiefes to 
Churches, to Republickes, to the manners, mindes and soules of 
men. And that the Profession of Play-poets, of Stage players; to- 
gether with the penning, acting, and frequenting of Stage-playes, 
are unlawfull, infamous and misbeseeming Christians. All pre- 
tences to the contrary are here likewise fully answered; and the 
unlawfulnes of acting, of beholding Academicall Enterludes, 
briefly discussed ; besides sundry other particulars concerning Danc- 
ing, Dicing, Health-drinking, &c. of which the Table will inform 
you. 

By William Prynne, an Vtter-Barrester of Lincolnes Inne. 

London, Printed by E. A. and W. I. for Michael Sparke, and 

are to be sold at the Blue Bible, in Greene Arbour, in little Old 

Bayly, 1633. 

From the title-page of the copy belonging to the library of Union Theo- 
logical Seminary. The passages concerning Women actors are pp. 162, 
214-215, 1002, 1003, and the index entry; concerning Henry Shirley, p. 553, 

Quarterly Review. 

An anonymous review entitled: 

The Dramatic Works and Poems of James Shirley ... by the 
late William Gifford . . . and . . . the Rev. Alexander Dyce 
. . . London, 1832 [_sic'\. 

Being pp. i—2g in : 

The Quarterly Review. Vol. XLIX. Published in April & 

July, 1833. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street. 1833. 

This review is a spirited and able notice of the life and writings of 
James Shirley as presented in the Gifford and Dyce edition of 1833. The 
reviewer gives us first a picture of Shirley's times and a summary of his 
life ; then, after some general critical considerations, he discusses in turn 
the work of Shirley in tragedy, in romantic tragicomedy, and in comedy 

1:4443 



> 



bibliography: part ii 

of manners; and illustrates his discussion with extensive extracts from 
The Traitor, The Cardinal, The Brothers, and The Lady of Pleasure, 
He concludes with commendation of the labors of Dyce and Giflrord. 

RiSTINE, F. H. 

English Tragicomedy, Its Origin and History. By Frank Hum- 
phrey Ristine, Ph.D. New York. The Columbia University 
Press. 1 910. 

Ristine's discussion of Shirley, pp. 135-139, is an acceptable account of 
Shirley's tragicomedies. See also pp. xiii, 124, 140, 150, 155, and 184. 

RiVERS's alleged authorship of The Traitor. 
See: 

Shirley, James: The Traytor, 1692. 
Gentleman's Journal, 1692. 

Robinson, C. J. 

A Register of the Scholars admitted to Merchant Taylors' 
School, from A.D. 1562 to 1874, compiled ... by the Rev. 
Charles J. Robinson, M.A., . . . 1882. 

The references to Shirley (Vol. i, p. 60, and note) are of little value. 

s.,j. 

Andromana: or the Merchant's Wife. The scaene, Iberia. By 

J. S. London, Printed for John Bellinger, and are to be sold at 

his shop in Cliffords-Inn-lane in Fleet-street, 1660. 

Ascribed to Shirley merely because of the initials. 

For reprints, see the several editions of Dodsley's Old Plays. 

St. George, Sir Henry, Kt., Richmond Herald, etc. 
See Visitation of London. 

St. Giles, Cripplegate. 

The Register Booke. Belonging to the Parish Church of S. 
Giles w^ithout Cripplegate in London, of all the Christenings, 

1:4453 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Burials, Weddings, beginning the first day of March, 1606, in the 

fift yeare of our most gracious Soveraigne Lord, King James. &c. 

[1624/5] 
"Chrlstnings in February. — 
"Mathias sonne of Mr. James Shurley gentleman — 26" 

St. Giles in the Fields. 

St. Giles in Ye Fields. 1638-68. 

"October 1666. . . . 

[ames Sherley 
Frances Sherley his wife" 



u (Mr J. 
^ I Mris. 



St. Mary Woolchurch. 

Register. 

"1596 

"James the sonne of James Sharlie was baptized the seventh of Sep- 
tember." 

St. Mary Woolchurch. 

The Transcript of the Registers of the United Parishes of S. 

Mary Woolnoth and S. Mary Woolchurch Haw, in the City of 

London, from their Commencement 1538 to 1760 ... By J. M. 

S. Brooke, M.A., F.R.G.S., ... and A. W. C. Hallen, M.A., 

F.S.A., . . . London: . . . 1886. . . . 

For data for a genealogy of "James, son of James Sharlie," see pp> 
Iviii, 300, 301, 302, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 347, 370, 371, 372, 378, 379, 383, 
384, and 388. 

Schelling, F. E. 

Elizabethan Drama, 1 558-1 642. A History of the Drama in 
England from the Accession of Queen Elizabeth to the Closing 
of the Theaters, to which is prefixed a Resume of the Earlier 
Drama from its Beginnings. By Felix E. Schelling, Professor in 
the University of Pennsylvania. Two volumes. Volume Two. 
Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1908. 

Pages 284-297 in Volume 11 are an acceptable critique of Shirle}'^s 
realistic plays; pages 312-326 are an equally acceptable account of his 
romantic plays. Schelling's brief discussion of Shirleian bibliography is 

n446] 



bibliography: part ii 

to be found chiefly on page 534. It is remarkable chiefly for one error — 
an error which it has successfully passed onward to The Cambridge His- 
tory of English Literature. Henceforth let bibliographers take notice that 
O. Gartner's Shirley, sein Leben und Werken, Halle Diss., 1904, refers 
not to James Shirley, but to John (i366?-i456). 

SCHIPPER, J. 

James Shirley, sein Leben und seine Werke. Nebst einer Uber- 
setzung seines Dramas "The Royal Master," von J. Schipper. 
Mit einem auf dem in der Bodleiana zu Oxford Befindlichen Por- 
trat Shirleys Beruhenden Bilde des Dichters. Wien und Leipzig. 
Wilhelm Braumiiller. . . . 191 1. 

As a popular introduction to his translation of The Royal Master, 
Schipper's three hundred and sixty-one pages on the life and works 
of Shirley must be accounted excellent. As a contribution, however, to 
Shirleian scholarship or to Shirleian criticism, the book is disappointing. 

The half-tone picture of Shirley which forms the frontispiece is a 
reproduction not of the Oxford portrait but of the Lupton engraving of 
1833. Witness the suggestion of a pillar at the left, the absence of the 
bay-wreath, and the black mustache. 

Select Collection of Old Plays, A. (Anon.) 
See DoDSLEY, Robert. 

Sheil, Richard L. 

See Shirley, James, revised, 181 9. 

Shiels, Robert. 
See Gibber, T. 

Shirley, E. P. (Anon.) 

Stemmata Shirleiana ; or the Annals of the Shirley Family, Lords 
of Nether Etindon in the County of Warwick, and of Shirley in 
the County of Derby. . . . Privately Printed . . . Westminster. 
MDCCCXLI. 

First edition. See p. 92 and passim. 

Shirley, E. P. (Anon.) 

Stemmata Shirleiana ; or the Annals of the Shirley Family, Lords 

1:4473 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

of Nether Etindon in the County of Warwick, and of Shirley in 
the County of Derby. . . . Second edition, Corrected and En- 
larged. . . . Westminster, MDCCCLXXIII. 
See pp. 119, 269-271, 339, and passim. 

Shirley, E. P. 

Who was Henry Shirley, the Author of The Martyr d Soldier? 

Being pp. 26— 2 y in: 

Notes and Queries: a Medium of Inter-Communication for 
Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, Etc. . . . Vol- 
ume Twelfth. July-December, 1855. London: . . . 1855. 

x 

A valuable contribution. 

Shirley, E. P. 

The Noble and Gentle Men of England; or notes touching the 
Arms and Descents of the ancient knightly and gentle houses of 
England. ... By Evelyn Philip Shirley, Esq., M.A., F.S.A. . . . 
Westminster: . . . Second Edition, Corrected, i860. 

For a drawing of the arms of Shirley of Eatington, see p. 254; for the 
blazon, "Paly of six, or and azure, a quarter ermine," see p. 255. 

Shirley, James. 

For Shirley's willj formerly at Doctors' CommonSj see Somer- 
set House, Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Mico, folio 
170. 

Smith, G. Barnett. 

Shirley. 

Being pp. $84-610 in : 

The Gentleman's Magazine. Volume CCXLVI. January to 
June, 1880. . . . Edited by Sylvanus Urban, Gentleman. Lon- 
don. . . . 1880. 

This is a graceful essay, biographical and critical: briefer than Swin- 
burne's, more appreciative of Shirley's merits, and yet more discriminat- 
ing. It concludes: 

"The truth is that too much has been made of the charge that Shirley 

1:4483 



bibliography: part ii 

is but the follower and close imitator of his immediate predecessors. We 
do not see why his laurels in tragedy should be regarded as being filched 
from Webster, or his laurels in comedy from Fletcher. Had he written 
precisely contemporaneously with them, his fame would now have been 
greater. He suffered by comparison with those who had already enrap- 
tured the world by their dazzling lustre, and he was charged with having 
lit the flame of his own genius at their shrine. Literary judgments have 
been subject to revision from the earliest ages of the world until now; 
and it may be that with a future generation the dramatic talents of Shir- 
ley will stand much higher than they do at present. His fine lyrical 
faculty is already universally acknowledged, whereas for upwards of a 
century it met with little recognition; and his position in the realm of 
dramatic art may yet come to be equally assured. He is no unworthy 
companion of the men who filled with noble music 'the spacious times of 
great Elizabeth'" (p. 6io). 

Some Account of the English Stage. (Anon.) 
See Genest, Rev. John. 

Stage, English, Some Account of the. (Anon.) 
See Genest, Rev. John. 

Stationers' Register. 

A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of 

London; 1554-1640 A.D. Volume IV. . . . Edited by Edward 

Arber. . . . Privately printed. London, i May, 1877. 

See III, 286; and iv, 125, 195, 215, 238, 262, 265, 267, 287, 303, 355, 369, 
373, 385, 415, 437, 438, 447, 465, 472, 475, and 482. 

Stemmata Shirleiana. (Anon.) 
See Shirley, E. P. 

Stiefel, a. L. 

Die Nachahmung spanischer Komodien in England unter den 
ersten Stuarts. Von A. L. Stiefel. 

Being pp. igj—220 in: 

Romanische Forschungen. Organ fiir Romanische Sprachen 
und Mittellatein Herausgegeben von Karl VollmoUer. V Band. 
. . . 1890. 

This article is devoted chiefly to a detailed comparison between Shir- 

1:4493 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

ley's The Opportunity and Tirso de Molina's El Castigo del Penseque. 
It asserts, moreover, but does not attempt to prove, that Shirley's The 
Young Admiral is based upon Lope de Vega's Don Lope de Cardona. 

Stiefel, a. L. 

Die Nachahmung spanischer Komodien in England unter den 
ersten Stuarts. III. 

Being pp. Jog-JSO in : 

Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 

. . . CXIX . . . 1907. 

This, a continuation of the foregoing article, is a detailed examination 
of the relation between Shirley's The Young Admiral and Lope de Vega's 
Don Lope de Cardona. 

Swinburne, A. C. 

Essay on the Poetical and Dramatic Works of George Chap- 
man. 

In: 

The Works of George Chapman: Poems and Minor Transla- 
tions. With an introduction by Algernon Charles Swinburne. 
London: . . . 1875. 

For Swinburne's opinion as to the authorship of Chabot, see p. xxxii. 

Swinburne, A. C. 

James Shirley. 

Being pp. 461—478 in : 

The Fortnightly Review. Edited by Frank Harris. Vol. 

XLVII. New Series. January i to June i, 1890. (Vol. LIII. 

Old Series.) London: . . . 1890. . . . 

Despite the justice of its concluding estimate of Shirley, and the high 
acceptability of portions here and there, this essay by Swinburne, consid- 
ered as a whole, is deeply disappointing. The status of Shirleian criti- 
cism in the year 1890 and the distinguished ability of Swinburne as a 
critic of poetry and drama, both justified the expectation that this essay 
would be a notable contribution to the subject. But such is not the case. 
Indeed, to sum up my impressions of Swinburne's essay upon Shirley, I 
can but use the words that Swinburne himself applied to Shirley's works: 
the several passages into which his essay might be separated, "fall natu- 
rally into three categories or classes : those in the first class are very good, 

1:4503 



bibliography: part II 

those in the second class are very fair, those in the third class are very- 
poor" (p. 478). Those passages that deal with The Traitor and The 
Example "belong beyond all question to the first class"; those that deal 
with certain of the realistic comedies "stand high in the second"; of the 
remaining passages, a majority belong, beyond all question, to the third. 
In short, one must say of Swinburne's essay as he says of Shirley's plays: 
"A considerable section ... is taken up by such vapid and colorless 
sketches, such mere shadows or phantoms of invertebrate and bloodless 
fancy, as leave no trace behind on the memory but a sense of tedious 
vanity and unprofitable promptitude of apparently copious but actually 
sterile invention. . . . They never . . . sink below a certain modest level 
of passable craftsmanship and humble merit; but they never rise into 
palpable distinction or cohere into substantial form. . . . You read them, 
and feel next day as if you had read nothing" (p. 461). 

From the more acceptable portions of the essay, I have quoted at length 
in my chapters on The Traitor and The Example. Here, however, in 
view of the supposed importance of Swinburne's contribution, I must not 
leave unnoted three defects. 

In the first place, Swinburne's knowledge of the plays he criticizes is 
often inaccurate and superficial. In an article nearly eleven thousand 
words in length, he dismisses twelve plays with an average of six and 
one fourth lines apiece. Among these, he grants to The Royal Master, 
one of the most delightful of the comedies, but forty-two words, and to 
The Duke's Mistress, twenty-five. Even The Cardinal, which Shirley 
deemed his greatest play, and to which most critics give at least the second 
place, Swinburne dismisses with a perfunctory quarter-page — one hundred 
and forty-four words. If Swinburne's criticisms were illuminating, we 
could forgive their brevity; but they are not. They have, despite their 
dogmatism, the tone of one who has not studied but skimmed, of the 
reader he himself describes, "who spends an hour or so" (p. 475) in the 
perusal of a five-act play, of the reviewer who must bolt thirty-three plays 
in quick succession, without time for mastication or digestion. This haste 
is evident not only in his superficial treatment of what he deems (not 
always justly) the less important plays, but even in those that he attempts 
to treat most thoroughly. In his criticism of The Traitor, for example, 
his careless reading of the opening scene leads him into a radical miscon- 
ception of Shirley's motivation. Of the character of Cosmo, he remarks: 
"The unreal unselfishness of unnatural devotion and the sentimental 
vehemence of moral paradox, which mark the decline of English tragedy 
from the level of Shakespeare's more immediate followers, are flagrant in 
the folly of such a conception as this of a lover who insists on resigning 
his mistress against her will to a friend already betrothed or pledged in 
honor to another woman" (p. 467). Now the fact is, that unselfishness 
and devotion and sentimental vehemence are precisely the qualities 
most conspicuously lacking in the character of Shirley's Cosmo in the 
scene discussed. If ever a man was actuated by cowardly and coldly 
selfish policy, that man was Cosmo. He saw, behind the manoeuvering 

1:4513 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

of his friend Pisano and Pisano's servant, the controlling hand of the 
powerful and dangerous Lorenzo, and he executed an instantaneous re- 
treat. "There is an engine levell'd at my fate," he says, "and I must 
arm" {The Traitor, i, i; Works, ii, 104). For this reason— not from 
devotion to his friend — did Cosmo surrender his betrothed. Such is Swin- 
burne's knowledge of what he accounts (p. 467) "the one play which gives 
its author a place among the tragic poets of Shakespeare's age and coun- 
try" ! If a critic is thus superficial where he aims to do his best, what is 
he at his worst? 

This discussion of Swinburne's superficial and inaccurate knowledge of 
the plays of Shirley, leads directly to the second count in our indictment: 
that his style is often neither specific nor becoming. For lack of facts, 
he indulges in opprobrious generalizations; having no case, he abuses the 
opposing counsel. He talks of "the idiotic monstrosity of speculative im- 
pudence" (p. 473) ; of "the most injudicious and ineflFectual perversity 
or debility of devotion" (p. 475) ; of plays that are "anaemic and inver- 
tebrate" (p. 462) ; of another play that is "anaemic and invertebrate" (p. 
471) ; of fancy that is "invertebrate and bloodless" (p. 461) ; of "inverte- 
brate versification" (p. 475) ; of a "feebly preposterous and impotently 
imitative abortion" (pp. 462-463) ; and of a "preposterous and irritating 
inanity of impotent invention" (p. 463). 

Third and lastly, Swinburne's indifference to accuracy of fact leads 
him repeatedly into errors of statement and of inference. I do not now 
refer to his unqualified ascription of The Country Captain to our dram- 
atist, although here, at least, Swinburne would rush in where scholars 
fear to tread. I refer rather to matters in which accuracy and certainty 
might have been had almost for the asking. For example, any appro- 
priate reference-books would have told him that Charles I came to the 
throne in March, 1625, and that Shirley's The Grateful Servant was li- 
censed November 3, 1629, full four years later; yet Swinburne asserts 
that "Charles I had been six months on the throne when this comedy was 
licensed" (p. 466).. Again, in his discussion of Shirley's comedy The 
Ball, Swinburne at once sneers at the ladies and their lovers as being 
"lamentably shadowy and shapeless" (p. 470), misquotes Shirley's own 
reference to his having been "bribed to a modest expression of their antic 
gambols" (p. 471), and scoffs at the correctness of Shirley's explanation 
(p. 471). Yet he had but to turn to the oft-quoted extract from Herbert's 
office-book to find a full and official record of the censoring of this play 
(Malone's Shakspere, 1821, ill, 231-232), a record which not only proves 
the essential truth of Shirley's statement but accounts for the shadowiness 
and shapelessness of Shirley's lords and ladies in The Ball. 

In these three respects, then — in a frequent superficiality of acquain- 
tance with the plays discussed, in a tendency to substitute adjectives for 
specific facts, and in a seeming indifference to accuracy in matters of exact 
scholarship — Swinburne's essay is not all that we could wish. Happy 
were he, could we say of his position among Shirley's critics as he says 
of the place of James Shirley among English poets: "The place of Swin- 

1:4523 



bibliography: part ii 

burne among the critics of Shirley 'is naturally unpretentious and modest: 
it is indisputably authentic and secure'" (p. 478). 

Thorndike, a. H. 

Tragedy. By Ashley H. Thorndike, Professor of English in 

Columbia University. Author of "The Influence of Beaumont and 

Fletcher on Shakspere." Boston and New York . . . [1908]. 

Pages 229-234 constitute a brief but acceptable account of Shirley's 
tragedies. See also pp. 199, 235, 237, 238, 240, 251, 252, 255, 256, 282, 344. 

TiERNEY, M. A. 

The History and Antiquities of the Castle and Town of Arun- 
del ; including the Biography of its Earls, from the Conquest to the 
Present Time. By the Rev. M. A. Tierney, F.S.A., Chaplain to 
his Grace the Duke of Norfolk. Vol. I. London: . . . 1834. 

In Volume i, on p. 67, note (a) reads as follows: 

"Sir Ed. Bishop was the second Baronet of that name, of Parham, in 
Sussex. In the 'Weekly account of certain special passages, &c. from 
Wednesday, Jan. 3, to the loth of the same, 1644,' he is said to be the 
person 'who some yeares since embrued his wilful hands in the blood of 
Master Henry Sherley, kinsman to Mr. James Sherley, the Playwright, 
and who did excel him in that faculty.' " 

TupPER, James W. 

The Relation of the Heroic Play to the Romances of Beaumont 
and Fletcher. 

Being pp. 584—621 in: 

Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 

. . . Vol. XX. New Series, Vol. XIII. . . . Baltimore. 1905. 

This article makes no mention of the plays of Shirley; but it clears the 
way for a study of the relation of Shirley's dramatic romances to the 
heroic drama of the Restoration. 

Vega Carpio, Lope de. 

Comedia Famosa de Don Lope de Cardona. 
In: 

Decima Parte de las Comedias de Lope de Vega Carpio, familiar 
del santo oficio : sacadas de sus originales. Dirigidas por el mismo 

1:4533 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

al Exemo Sr Marques de Santa Cruz, Capitan general de la Es- 

quadro de Espana. Madrid: afio 1620. 

In the Ticknor Collection, Boston Public Library: **D:i48.3j Vol. X. 
This play is the source of a portion of Shirley's romantic comedy The 
Young Admiral. Stiefel quotes an edition of 1618. 

Visitation of London. 

The Publications of the Harleian Society. Established A.D. 
MDCCCLXIX. Volume XVII. For the year MD CCC 
LXXXIII. The Visitation of London, Anno Domini 1633, 1634, 
and 1635. Made by Sr. Henry St. George, Kt., Richmond Her- 
ald, and Deputy and Marshal to Sr. Richard St. George, Kt., 
Clarencieux King of Arms. Volume 11. Edited by Joseph Jack- 
son Howard, LL.D., F.S.A. London: 1883. 

The pedigrees and arms of James Shirley, goldsmith, of London, and 
of his brother John, pp. 235-236, appear to forbid the assumption that 
James Shirley the dramatist was a member of their family. 

Ward, A. W. 

James Shirley. 
Being pp. 126—133 in: 

Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Sidney Lee. Vol. 
LII. Shearman — Smirke. New York . . . London . . . 1897. 

Although sometimes overpositive concerning matters still uncertain, 
this article must be accounted a scholarly summary of the facts of Shir- 
ley's life. Unfortunately, however, it is marred by no less than thirteen 
typographical errors. 

Page 126, second column, line 35: The date of St. Albans should be 
"14 Feb. 1639/40," not "1639." 

Page 126, second column, line 38: The date of the baptism of Mathias 
Shirley should be "26 Feb. 1624/5," not "1624." 

Page 126, second column, line 48 : The date of Love Tricks should be 
"10 Feb. 1624/5," not "4 Feb. 1625/6." 

Page 128, first column, line 10: The date of The Traitor should be 
"1635," not ''1638." 

Page 128, first column, line 46: Read "the hitherto unprinted dramas 
by Beaumont and Fletcher," not ''ten hitherto unprinted dramas." 

Page 130, second column, line 28: The statement that The Wedding 
was "licensed 9 Feb. 1626" and the reference to Fleay as authority on the 
point, are incorrect in several w^ays. The date is a misprint, occasioned 
by a repetition of the date of The Maid's Revenge, above : no record of 

i:454l 



bibliography: part ii 

the licensing of The Wedding has been preserved. Fleay's hypothesis 
concerns not the licensing but the acting of The Wedding; and the date 
he gives is not "9 Feb." but May 31. > 

Page 131, first column, line 39: The date of The Arcadia should be \ 

"1640," not "1614." ' 

Page 132, first column, line 34: The initials should be "T. B.," not 
"J. B." 

Page 132, second column, line 10: The date on which The Doubtful 
Heir was printed as one of Six New Playes should not be "1654." The 
date on the title-page of The Doubtful Heir is "1652"; that on the joint 
title-page of Six Ne<w Playes is "1653." 

Page 132, second column, line 34: The date of The Duke should be 
"17 May," not "7 May." 

Page 133, first column, line 44: The date of The Beauties should be 
-1633," not "1643." 

Page 133, first column, line 48: For "Looke to the Ladies" read, "Looke 
to the Ladie." 

Page 133, second column, line 21: For "T. G. Fleay" read "F. G. 
Fleay." 



Ward, A. W. 

A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of 

Queen Anne. By Adolphus William Ward, Litt.D., Hon. LL.D. 

. . . New and Revised Edition. Vol. HI. London . . . New 

York . . . 1899. . . . 

The account of Shirley's plays, ill, 89-125, is, for the most part, excel- 
lent. Ward's chief weakness, perhaps, results from his ignorance of the 
work of Stiefel concerning Shirley's debt to Spanish sources. A few 
misprints, copied from Ward's article in the Dictionary of National Biog- 
raphy, occur. 



Ward, A. W. 

James Shirley. The Royal Master. Edited with Critical Essay 
and Notes by Sir Adolphus William Ward, Litt.D., F.B.A., Mas- 
ter of Peterhouse, Cambridge. 

Being pp. 545-652 in : 

Representative English Comedies . . . [edited by] . . . 
Charles Mills Gayley . . . Volume HI. . . . New York, . . . 
1914. 

The Critical Essay occupies pp. 547-562. 

1:4553 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

Whitelocke, Bulstrode. (Anon.) 

Memorials of the English Affairs: or an historical account of 

what passed from the beginning of the reign of King Charles the 

First to King Charles the Second his happy Restauration . . . 

London. . . . MD C LXXXIL 

Pages 1 8-21 give an elaborate account of the presentation of Shirley's 
Triumph of Peace by the Inns of Court, but make no direct mention of the 
dramatist. 

Wilson, H. B. 

The History of Merchant Taylors' School, from its foundation 
to the present time. In two parts. I. Of its founders, patrons, 
benefactors, and masters. II. Of its principal scholars. By the 
Rev. H. B. Wilson, B.D., Second Under Master . . . London: 
i8i2. ... 

The second volume (1814) contains the best of Wood and Whitelocke, 
but no record of Shirley's life at the school. See Volume 11, pp. 672-675, 
693, 710, 741, 779, 792-794- 

Winstanley, William. 

The Lives of the most famous English Poets, or the honour of 
Parnassus ; in a brief essay of the works and writings of above two 
hundred of them, from the time of K. William the Conqueror to 
the reign of his present majesty King James II. . . . Written by 
William Winstanley, author of the English Worthies. . . . Lon- 
don, . . . 1687. 

The notice of Shirley, pp. 138-139, is but a paraphrase of that by Ed- 
ward Phillips, 1675. 

Wood, Anthony a. 

Athenae Oxonienses. An Exact History of all the Writers and 
Bishops who have had their Education in the most ancient and 
famous University of Oxford, from the Fifteenth Year of King 
Henry the Seventh, Dom. 1500, to the End of the Year 1690. 
Representing the Birth, Fortune, Preferment, and Death of all 
those Authors and Prelates, the great Accidents of their Lives, and 

n456n 



bibliography: part ii 

the Fate and Character of their Writings. To which are added 
the Fasti or Annals, of the said University. The Second Volume, 
Compleating the whole Work. — Antiquam exquirite Matrem. 
Virgil. London: Printed for Tho. Bennet at the Half-Moon in 
S. Pauls Churchyard, MDCXCII. 

Wood's account of Shirley, pp. 260-262, is the earliest biographical 
sketch of him that we possess. Subsequent biographers have been content 
to cite Wood as an authority, forgetful of the fact that the Athena ap- 
peared in 1691, almost half a century after the closing of the theaters, 
and a full quarter-century after Shirley's death. On one point, the age 
of the dramatist at his death, we have documentary grounds for believing 
Wood to be in error. That he has made no other errors is scarcely 
probable. 

The first volume is dated 1691.' 

Wood, Anthony a. 

Athenae Oxonienses. An Exact History of all the Writers and 
Bishops who have had their education in the University of Oxford. 
To which are added the Fasti, or annals of the said University. 
By Anthony a Wood, M.A., of Merton College. A new edition 
with additions, and a continuation by Philip Bliss, fellow of St. 
John's College. Vol. III. . . . London: . . . 181 7. 

In this edition the account of Shirley appears in Vol. iii, pp. 737-744. 

Wood, Anthony a. 

The Life of Anthony a Wood, from the Year 1632 to 1672, 
written by himself, and published by Mr. Thomas Hearne. Now 
continued to the time of his death from authentic materials. The 
whole illustrated with notes and the addition of several curious 
original papers never before printed. Oxford, . . . M DCC 
LXXII. . . . 

Contained in: 

The Lives of those eminent antiquaries John Leland, Thomas 
Hearne, and Anthony a Wood ; with an authentick account of their 
respective writings and publications, from Original Papers. In 
which are occasionally inserted memoirs relating to many eminent 
persons and various parts of Literature. Also several engravings 

1:457: 



JAMES SHIRLEY, DRAMATIST 

of antiquity never before published. In two volumes. Vol. II. 
Oxford: . . . MDCCLXXII. 

This detailed chronicle of the life of Wood, written by the antiquarian 
himself, contributes nothing to warrant a belief that he was personally 
acquainted with James Shirley. 

Wright, James. (Anon.) 

A Dialogue on Plays and Players. 
Being pp. i—xxxvii in Dodsley^s 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. Volume the Eleventh. Lon- 
don: Printed for R. Dodsley in Pall-Mall. M.DCC.XLIV. 
This Dialogue is the Historia Hisirionica. 

Wright, James. (Anon.) 

Historia Histrionica. 

Being pp. 337—3^3 in Dodsley^ s 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. . . . The Second Edition, 
. . . Volume XII. London, . . . MDCCLXXX. 

Wright, James. (Anon.) 

Historia Histrionica. 
Being pp. cxxxix—clxix in Dodsley* s 

A Select Collection of Old Plays. . . .Vol. I. A New Edi- 
tion: . . . London. . . . MDCCCXXV. 

Wright, James. (Anon.) 

Historia Histrionica. An Historical Account of the English 
Stage; showing the Ancient Uses, Improvement, and Perfection 
of Dramatic Representations, in this Nation. In a Dialogue of 
Plays and Players. — Olim meminisse juvabit. London. Printed 
by G. Croom, for William Haws, at the Rose in Ludgate-Street. 
1699. 8°. 

Being pp. 3gg-43i in: 

A Select Collection of Old English Plays. Originally pub- 
lished by Robert Dodsley in the year 1744. Fourth Edition, now 

n458 3 



bibliography: part ii 

first chronologically arranged, revised, and enlarged with the notes 
of all the commentators, and new notes by W. Carew Hazlitt. 
Volume the Fifteenth. London: . . . 1876. 

The principal references to Shirley's plays occur in the following 
passage, pp. 404-405 : 

"Hart and Clun were bred up boys at the Blackfriars, and acted 
women's parts. Hart was Robinson's boy or apprentice; he acted the 
Duchess in the tragedy of The Cardinal, which was the first part that 
gave him reputation. Cartwright and Wintershal belonged to the Private 
House in Salisbury Court; Burt was a boy, first under Shank at the 
Blackfriars, then under Beeston at the Cockpit; and Mohun and Shatterel 
were in the same condition with him at the last place. There Burt used 
to play the principal women's parts, in particular Clariana, in Love's 
Cruelty ; and at the same time Mohun acted Bellamente, which part he 
retained after the Restoration." 

See also the reference to The Wedding, p. 405. 



C4593 



INDEX 



Account of the English Dramatic Poets, 

An. See Langbaine 
Account of the English Stage, Some. 

See Genest 
Account of Shirley. See Dyce 
Alchemist, The, 93 
Alexander, Duke of Florence (in The 

Traitor), 207 
Allot, T., 97-98, 405 
American Quarterly Review, The, 419, 

422, 429, 432 
Amidea (in The Traitor), 207-210, 217, 

218-219, 238, 396 
Andreozzi, Aurelio (in The Opportu- 
nity), 264-270, 395 
Andromana : or. The Merchant's Wife, 

416, 417, 427, 434, 44S. 
Anglia. See Fleay 
Annals of the Careers of James and 

Henry Shirley. See Fleay 
Annals of the Stage. See Collier 
Antony and Cleopatra, 278 
Apology for the Believers in the Shak- 

speare-Papers, An. See Chalmers 
Arber, Edward, 63, 67, 386, 423, 442, 

449 
Arcadia, The, 44, 70-72, 90, 102, 105, 

106, 132, 144, 239, 241, 242-245, 

247, 252, 274, 288, 389, 394, 407, 

416, 419, 434, 455 
Archiv fiir das Studium der neueren 

Sprachen und Literaturen. See 

Stiefel 
Ardelia (in The Duke's Mistress), 2S1- 

284, 395 
Arundel, The History . . . of . . . See 

Tierney. 
Astle's copy of Wood's Athence, MS. 

note in, 26, 29, 30, 401, 423, 424 
As You Like It, 180, 325 
Athence Oxonienses. See Wood 

Baker, D. E., 423 

Baker, J., 146, 411 

Ball, The, 35, 44, 45, 69, 72, 100, 101, 
121, 132, 133, 145, 165, 168, 169, 222, 
227, 230-237, 22,7, 241, 242, 388, 391, 
393, 406, 419, 430, 433, 443, 452 

Bancroft, Thomas, 9, 28-29, 30, 31, 423 

Barker (in The Ball), 236, 393 

Barnacle, Young (in The Gamester), 
256, 257-258, 392, 417 

Bartholomew Fair, 229 

Bashful Lover, The, 180 



Beaumont, Sir Francis, 83, 140-141, 
180, 217, 220, 409, 435, 437, 454 

Beaumont and Fletcher, The Relation 
of the Heroic Play to the Romances 
of. See Tupper 

Beaumont and . . . Fletcher . . , Com- 
edies and Tragedies Written by: 
Shirley's address "To the Reader" in, 
140-141 

Beeston, Christopher, 45, 57, 121, 127, 
130, 231, 385, 459 

Beeston's Boys, 99, 127, 128, 130, 459 

Beeston, William, 127, 128, 130, 426 

Bell's British Theatre, 418 

Bewties, The. See Bird in a Cage, The, 
72, 239, 245, 455 

Biographia Dramatica. See Baker, D.E. 

Biographical Chronicle of the English 
Drama, A. See Fleay 

Bird in a Cage, The, 4, 72, 74, 75, 
76-79,. 90, loi, 145, 239, 242, 245- 
247, 252, 274, 288, 389, 394, 403, 
415, 417, 419, 427, 430, 433, 455 

Bishop, Sir Ed., 453 

Black Friars, Private House in, 52, 54, 
55, 56,' 58, 60, 107, 108, 109, 118, 
124, 130, 131, 142, 143, 144, 289, 335, 
372, 410, 4", 459 

Bliss, Philip, 22, 457 

Bombo (in The Royal Master), 300, 
303, 392 

Bossewell, John, 12 

Bostock (in The Ball), 236, 393 

Boston Public Library, 454^ 

Brains (in The Witty Fair One), 190, 
197, 238, 393 

British Dramatists, The Works of the. 
See Keltic 

British Museum, Library of the, 100, 
146, 152, 406, 408, 411, 412, 413, 414, 
415, 416, 418, 426, 429, 432, 436 

British Poets, Specimens of the. See 

Campbell 
British Theatre, Bell's, 418 
Brooke, J. M. S. See St. Mary Wool- 
church 

Brothers, The, of 1626, 35, 38, 39, 40, 
41, 46-68, 69, 108, 147, 165, 169, 183, 
276, 336, 387, 388, 389, 424, 442 

Brothers, The, of 1652, 38, 39, 46-68, 
69, 108, 132, 142, 143, 145, 155, 165, 
169, 242, 276, 289, 292, 320, 336-342, 
343, 380, 387, 388, 389, 392, 410, 
411, 419, 425, 430, 433, 436, 445 



1:4613 



INDEX 



Brydges, S. E., 26, 401, 423 

B., T., 152, 414, 415, 455 

Bubulcus (in Love Tricks'), 172, 393 

Bullen, A. H., 39, 46, 62, 63, 65, 66, 

67, 424, 442 
Biissy D'Ambois. See Chapman. 

Cambridge History of English Litera- 
ture. See Neilson 

Cambridge University, 21, 25, 26, 27, 
28, 30, 31, 33 

Campbell, T., 424 

Caperwit (in Changes, or Love in a 
Maze), 227, 393 

Captain Underwit, 424 

Cardinal, The, 52, 53, 55, 60, 83, 108, 
132, 142, 143, 144, 145, 155, 174, 
289, 292, 320, 321, 344-361, 379, 386, 
390, 396, 408, 411, 419, 420, 421, 422, 
424, 428, 440-441, 443, 445, 451, 459 

Cardinal (in The Cardinal), 356-360, 
396, 434 

Careers of James and Henry Shirley, 
Annals of the. See Fleay 

Cassandra (in The Young Admiral), 
250, 395 

Castigo del Penseque, El, 263, 264, 268- 
270, 324. 383, 450 

Catalogue of Early English Books. See 
Hoe, Robert 

Catalogue of the Library of Robert Hoe 
of New York. See Hoe, Robert, Li- 
brary of. 

Catherine Hall. See Katherine Hall 

Cavendish, W. See Newcastle 

Censura Literaria. See Brydges 

Cesario (in The Young Admiral), 250, 

395 

Chabot, Admiral of France, 82, 83-89, 
90, 100-101, loi, 124, 132, 145, 241, 
263, 274, 279, 287, 337-338, 389, 395, 
406, 419, *^20, 424, 430, 436, 442. See 
Lehman, and Parrott 

Chalmers, G., 126, 422, 424 

Chamberlain, Lord. See Pembroke and 
Montgomery. See Essex 

Chambers, E. K., 50, 126, 425 

Changes, or Love in a Maze, 9, 41, 44, 
45, 51, 57, 69, loi, 127, 14s, 154, 
156, 165, 169, 222, 226-227, 229, 236, 
237, 242, 388, 392, 393, 402, 419, 428, 
433> 436 

Chapman, George, 4, 82, 84-89, 90, 100, 
loi, 337-338, 389. 406, 420 

Chapman, George, The Plays and Poems 
of. See Parrott 

Chapman, The Tragedies of. See Leh- 
man 

Charles I, 3, 4, 36, 40, 71, 74, 79, 81, 
93, 135. 136, 253, 258, 306 

Charles IL 3, iS3, i55 



Chetwood, W. R., 416, 425 
Chief Elizabethan Dramatists. See Neil- 
son 

Chorus Vatum Anglicanorum. See 

Hunter 
Cibber, Theophilus, 7, 23, 25, 137, 425 
Civil War, 3, 135, 136-137, 161 
Cleona (in The Grateful Servant), 191- 

193, 395 
Clutterbuck, R., 425 
Cockpit. See Phoenix 
Cockpit Plays, List of, 99, 103, 128, 424, 

426, 438 
Coleridge, S. T., 378 
Collection of Old Plays, A Select. See 

Dodsley 
Collier, J. P., 82, 126, 128, 130, 426, 

427 
Columbia University, Library of, 415 
Columbo (in The Cardinal), 351-353 
Comedy, Romantic. See Romantic Com- 
edy 
Commendatory Verses, 419 
Companies, English Dramatic. See 

Murray 
Complement, School of. See Love 

Tricks 
Comus. See Milton 
Conceited Duke, The, 103 
Congreve, 5 
Conspiracy and Tragedy of Charles, 

Duke of Byron. See Chapman 
Constable, F., 44, 96, 402, 405 
Constant Maid, The, 104, 106-107, 119, 

124, 128, 132, 145, 152, 157, 242, 276, 

289, 292, 314-319, 320, 339, 362, 380, 

389, 391, 392, 408, 414, 419, 434 
Contention for Honor and Riches, A, 

74, 75, 90, loi, 402, 419, 433 
Contention of Ajax and Ulysses, The, 

148-150, 161, 412-413, 419, 434, 435 
Cooke, A., 97 
Cooke, W.,' 45, 74, 75, 81, 82, 84, 95, 

96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 

114, 124, 402, 403, 404, 406, 407, 408 
Coronation, The, 82-83, 88, 90, 101, 

IDS, 106, 123, 124, 132, 145, 239, 242, 

263, 270-274, 27s, 288, 325, 326, 389, 

394, 408, 419, 434 
Cosmo (in The Traitor), 451 
Country Captain, The, 153, 424, 452. 

See Newcastle 
Court Secret, The, 55, 56, 60, 108, 132, 

13s, 142, 143, 144, 156, 289, 292, 320, 

362, 371-380, 381, 390, 394, 411, 

419, 436, 443 
Covent Garden. See Nabbes 
Criticism, Literary, The Library of. See 

Moulton 
Crooke, Andrew, 84, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 

101, 102, 106, 114, 124, 404, 406, 407, 

408 



1:462:] 



INDEX 



Crooke, E., 97, 98, 405 

Crooke, J., 97, 146, i49. 405. 4". 412, 

413 
Cross, T., 142 
Cupid and Death, 146, 161, 411, 413, 

419 
Cymheline, 169, 242, 274 
Cynthia's Revels, 173 

Davenant, Sir William, 130, 156, 426, 

428 
Depazzi (in The Traitor), 211-212, 379, 

393 
Deputy of Ireland, Lord. See Strafford 
Dialogue on Plays and Players, A. See 

Wright, J. 
Diary of Samuel Pepys, The. See 

Pepys 
Dibdin, C, 363, 371, 426 
Dicke of Devonshire, 39, 46, 63-68, 69, 

165, 169, 424, 426, 442. See BuUen 
Dictionary of National Biography, 32, 

426, 454, 455. See also Ward 
Dodsley, Robert, 415, 416, 417, 426- 

427, 447,. 458-459 

Domitilla (in The Royal Master), 296- 
300, 303, 395 

Don Lope de Cardona, 247, 249-250, 
450, 453-454 

Dormant (in The Example), 259, 393 

Doubtful Heir, The (Rosania), 49-50, 
54. 55. 60, 99, 107, 118, 124, 132, 
142, 143, 144, 289, 292, 320, 321-330, 
342, 343, 379. 381,' 390, 394. 410, 
419, 424, 42s, 426, 431, 434, 435, 437, 

455 

Downes, John, 156, 161, 428 

Drama, A Biographical Chronicle of the 
English. See Fleay 

Dramatic Companies, English. See 
Murray 

Dramatic Literature, English. See 
Ward 

Dram.atic Poetry, English, The History 
of. See Collier 

Dramatic Poets, English, An Account 
of the. See Langbaine 

Dramatic Poets, English, Specimens of. 
See Lamb 

Dramatic Poets, English, The Lives and 
Characters of the. See Gildon 

Dramatic romance, 5, 169, 182, 242, 
244, 246, 263, 270, 273, 274, 275, 288, 
321, 322, 325, 326, 327, 342, 372, 377, 
378, 381, 383, 391. 393-394, 395, 453 

Dramatic Works and Poems of James 
Shirley. See: American Quarterly 
Review; Dyce; Gifford; Quarterly Re- 
view; Shirley; Works 



Dramatists, The Chief Elisahethan. See 

Neilson 
Dring, Thomas, Jr., 414 
Drury Lane, Private House in. See 

Phoenix 
Dryden, John, 5, 335, 383, 393, 428, 

430, 436, 437 

Dublin, Theater in, 93, 97, 98, 99, 105, 

no, 131, 293, 405, 425 
Duchess of Malfi,, The. See Webster 
Duke, The, 102-103, 165, 221, 223, 430, 

431. 455- See also Humorous Cour- 
tier, The 

Duke of York's Servants, The. See 
Servants 

Duke's Mistress, The, 89, 90, 98-99, 
loi, 132, 145, 239, 242, 263, 276, 
280-286, 287, 288, 389. 394. 395, 

406, 419, 434, 451 

Dyce, Rev. Alexander, 6, 7, 9 note, 16, 
21, 22, 2y, 28, 29,' 32, 47-54, 80, 84, 
85, 91, 117, 120, 151, 174, 181, 229, 
271, 280, 418-419, 422, 429, 430, 432, 
444 

EcCHO, or the Infortunate Lovers, 26, 

27, 30, 140, 387, 401, 423 
Egglesfeild, F., 102, 104,' 106, 124, 244, 

407, 430 

Elizabeth, Queen, 3, 449 

Elizabeth, Lady, 57 

Elizabethan Drama. See Schelling 

Elizabethan Dramatists, The Chief. See 
Neilson 

Elizabethan Playhouse, The. See Law- 
rence, W. J. 

Elizabethans, 3, 383 

Englische Studien. See Glode, O. 

English Comedies, Representative. See 
Gayley 

English Drama, A Biographical Chron- 
icle of the. See Fleay 

English Dramatic Companies. See Mur- 
ray 

English Dramatic Literature. See 
Ward 

English Dramatic Poetry, The History 
of. See Collier 

English Dramatic Poets, An Account of 
the. See Langbaine 

English Dramatic Poets, Specimens of. 
See Lamb 

English Dramatic Poets, The Lives and 
Characters of the. See Gildon 

English Garner, An. See Arber, E., 
and Peeke, R. 

English Poets, The Lives of the most 
famous. See Winstanley 

English Stage, Some Account of the. 
See Genest 

English Tragicomedy. See Ristine 



1:4633 



INDEX 



Epicocne, 259 

Epilogue to The Imposture, 335 

Essay on the Learning of Shakspere, 

An. See Fanner 
Essex, Earl of, Lord Chamberlain, 49, 

126, 425 
Evadne; or, The Statue, 418 
Every Man in his Humor, 168, 222 
Every Man out of his Humor, 236 
Example, The, 81, 88, 90, 95-96, loi, 

132, 145, 155, 239, 241, 253, 254, 

258-262, 275, 287, 288, 389, 392, 393, 

404, 419, 428,. 434, 451 

Faithful Servant, The. See Grateful 
Servant, The 

Farce, 174, 252, 292, 362, 371, 379, 381 

Farmer, Dr. Richard, 28, 29, 30, 33, 
342, 423, 429-430 

Fleay, F. G., 6, 7, 11, 30, 33. 38, 40, 
41,. 43, 44, 46-68, 70, 71-72, 75, 84, 
90. 95. 97. 99, 100. 102, 103, 104, 109, 
112, 114, IIS, 117. 123, 124, 126, 128, 
165, 177. 306, 336, 384, 387, 424. 430- 
431, 442, 454, 455 

Fletcher, John, 4, 5, 73, 83, 93. 102, 
106, 123, 124, 134, 140-141, 14s, 168, 
169, 170, 180, 181, 182, 218, 220, 221, 
222, 229, 238, 242, 244, 245, 246, 252, 
270, 272, 274, 275, 288, 292, 318, 321, 
322, 326, 327, 342, 378, 379, 380, 381, 
383, 387. 388, 391, 392, 393, 394. 395. 
397, 408, 409, 426, 435, 436, 437. 443, 
449. 454 

Fletcher, Beaumont and; The Relation 
of the Heroic Play to the Romances 
of. See Tupper 

Ford and Shirley. See Neilson 

Ford, John, 42, 77 

Forsythe, R. S., 62, 383, 431 

Fortnightly Review, The. See Swin- 
burne 

Foscari (in The Grateful' Servant) , 191- 
193. 395 

Frapolo (in The Sisters), 365-371, 395 

French Dancing Master, 145, 443 

French Dancing Mistress, The, 443 

Freshwater, Jack (in The Ball), 236, 
393 

Gamester, The, 4, 72, 73, 74, 90, 95- 
96, loi, 120, 132, 14s, 168, 239, 241, 
253, 254-258, 275, 287,- 387, 389. 391, 
392, 404, 417, 419, 427, 428, 431, 434, 
435. See The Wife's Relief, and The 
Gamesters 

Gamesters, The, 415, 417, 418. See 
The Gamester, and The Wife's Relief 

Garner, An English. See Arber, E., 
and Peeke, R. 

Garrick, David, 415, 417, 418 



Gartner, O., 441, 447 

Gayley, C. M., 421, 455 

Gaywood, R., 11, 151, 161, 409 

General, The, Prologue to, 94 

Genest, Rev. John, 429, 431, 449 

Gentleman of Venice, The, 103, 128, 
129, 130, 132, 144-145, 146, 147, 161, 
289, 292, 305-307, 313, 314, 319, 320, 
381, 390, 394, 411, 419, 434, 438 

Gentleman's Journal, The, 415, 431-432 

Gentleman's Magazine, The. See Smith, 
G. Barnett 

Gifford, William, 9 note, 32, 48, 300, 
418-419, 422, 427, 429, 432, 444 

Gilchrist, Octavius, 91 

Gildon, Charles, 437 

Globe Theater, The, 124, 131 

Glode, O., 432, 441 

"Glories of our blood and state, The," 
149-150 

Gosse, Edmund, 6, 72, 137, 191, 420, 

432-433 
Grateful Servant, The, 41, 43, 69, g6, 
loi, 145, 156, 165, 168, 169, 183, 184, 
191-197, 198, 221, 222, 227, 22,7, 241, 
247. 305, 388, 392, 394, 395, 401, 405, 
413, 419, 424, 428, 433, 434, 436, 452 
Gray's Inn, 32, 34, 35, 131, 403 
Grove,. J., 41, 42, 43, 75, 401, 402 

Hallen, a. W. C. See St. Mary Wool- 
church 

Hamlet, 170, 311 

Hatton Garden, 157, 414 

Hazlitt, W. C, 427, 459 

Hearne, Thomas, 457 

Henrietta Maria, 4, 7Z ,74, 76, 79, 81 

Henry V., 173 

Herbert, Sir Henry, 4, 36, 38, 39-40, 
44, 48, 62, 65, 71, 72, 72, 80-81, 83, 
89, 92, 120, 121, 127, 131, 147, 154, 
161, 221-222, 258, 384, 386, 426, 429, 
433, 438, 452. See Malone 

Her Majesty's Servants. See Servants 

Hernando (in The Cardinal), 353-356 

Heroic plays, 5, 379, 453 

Heroic Play, The Relation of the, to 
the Romances of Beaumont and 
Fletcher. See Tupper 

Hertford, The History . . . of the 
County of. See Clutterbuck 

Hertfordshire, The Victoria History of 
the County of. See Page 

Heywood, 46, 71, 124, 428, 437 

His Majesty's Servants. See Servants 

Historia Histrionica. See Wright, J. 

History of English Dramatic Literature, 
A. See Ward 

History of the Stage. See Malone 

History of the Stage, An Enlarged. 
See Malone 



1:464: 



INDEX 



Histriomastix. See Prynne 

Hoe, Robert. Catalogue of Early Eng- 
lish Books, 407, 433 

Hoe, Robert, Library of, 41, 42, 43, 44, 
59, 75, 81, 82, 83, 95, 96, 97. 98, 99, 
loi, 105, 106, 107, 142, 149, 150, 152, 
293, 387, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 
407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 433- 
435 

Honoria and Mammon, 148-149, 161, 
412, 419, 434, 435 

Hornet (in The Constant Maid), 319, 
392 

Howard, J. J. See Visitation of Lon- 
don 

Humorous Courtier, The, 43-44, 69, 
102-103, 105, 132, 145, 165, 169, 221, 
222-223, 2Z7, 388, 393, 406-407, 
419, 430, 431, 434, 455 

Humors, Comedy of, 168, 170,. 174, 177, 
179, 182, 184, 221, 227, 236, 242, 254, 
258, 262, 281, 287, 379, 391, 392-393 

Hunter, Joseph, 11, 435 

Hutton, W. H., 435 

Hyde Park, 44, 69, 72, 95, loi, 114, 
132, 14s, 157, 165, 168, 169, 222, 226, 
227-230, 236, 237, 242, 387, 388, 391, 
404, 419, 420, 433, 434, 443 

Illinois, University of: its presentation 
of The Opportunity, 439-440 
"■•Imposture, The, 50, 55, 60, 99, 107, 
117, 132, 142, 143, 144, 145, 289, 292, 
320, 330-335, 336, 342, 343, 379, 381, 
390, 394, 395, 411, 419, 425, 426 

Inns of Court, 5, 79-80, 81, 145, 403, 
456 

Ireland, Lord Deputy of. See Strafford 

Irish Gent, The, Prologue to, 93 

Irish theater. See Chetwood 

Ives, Simon, 79, 80 

Jacomo (in The Grateful Servant), 196- 
197, 238, 392 

James I, 3, 36 

James, Upon the Death of King, 36, 37 

Johnson, Charles, 415, 417, 418 

Jones, Inigo, 5, 79, 81 

Jonson, Ben, 4, 5, 93, 134, 141, 168, 
170, 173, 181, 182, 186, 190, 221, 222, 
227, 229, 236, 238, 241, 242, 258, 259, 
262, 287, 292, 380, 381, 387, 388, 391, 
392, 397, 435, 437 

Juliana (in The Imposture), 331-332, 
395 

Katherine Hall, Cambridge, 27, 28, 29, 

31, 33, 34 
Keltie, John S,, 419 



Kildare, George, Earl of, 91, iio-iii, 

113, 122 
King (in The Royal Master), 293-299, 

395 

Kingsley, Charles, 435 

King's men. See Servants, His Maj- 
esty's 

King's Men, Plays of, in 1641. See 
Chambers 

Knight, J., 431 

Krapp, G. P., 314, 436 

Lacrym^ Cantabrigienses, MS. verses 
in, 27, 29 

Lady of Pleasure, The, 82, 90, 94-95, 
Id, 114, 120, 132, 133, 145, 232, 236, 
239, 241, 263, 276-280, 287, 387, 389, 
392, 403, 419, 420, 424, 434, 436, 440, 

445 
Lamb, Charles, 436 
Langbaine, Gerard, 436-437 
Latin comedy, 173 
Laud, William, 21, 22, 23 
Lawes, William, 5, 79, 80 
Lawrence, W. J., 437 
Leach, A. F. See Page, W. 
Leake, W., 96, 405, 413, 414 
Learning of Shakespeare, An Essay on 

the. See Farmer 
Le Frisk (in The Ball), 236, 393 
Legh, Gerard, 12 
Lehman, Ezra, 84, 85-86, loi, 406, 420, 

437 

Leland, John, 457 

Leonora, Princess (in The Grateful Ser- 
vant), 191-193, 395 

Library of Literary Criticism, The. See 
Moulton 

Little Lincoln's-Inn Fields, Theater in, 
414 

Lives and Characters of the English 
Dramatick Poets, The. See Gildon 

Lives of the most famous English Poets, 
The. See Winstanley. 

Lives of the Poets. See Cibber 

Lodam (in The Wedding), 179, 180, 
392 

Long, Mrs., 428 

Look to the Lady, 66, 104, 124, 313, 
430, 455 

Lorenzo (in The Traitor), 202-204, 238, 
379, 396 

Love in a Maze. See Changes 

Love's Cruelty, 43-44, 69, 101, 102, 
105-106, 123, 124, 132, 14s, 154, 
157, 165, 169, 221, 224-226, 237, 388, 
392, 407, 419, 434, 443, 459 

Love Tricks, or The School of Comple- 
ment, 35, 36, 38, 40, 44, 57, 69, 96, 
loi, 14s, 156, 157, 158, 165, 169, 170- 
174, 177, 180, 182, 183, 221, 222, 237, 



C4653 



INDEX 



241, 314, 388, 393, 394, 402, 404-405, 

414, 419, 428, 430, 433, 434, 436, 443, 

454 
Love will finde out the Way, 152, 414, 

415, 427, 434. See Constant Maid, 
The 

Lowndes, R., 148, 412, 413 
Lupton, T., 151, 447 

Macbeth, 311 

Mac Flecknoe. See Dryden 

Maid's Revenge, The, 38, 40, 69, 83, 
100-101, loi, 105, 109, 115, 116, 118, 
120, 132, 145, 154, 165, 169, 170, 174- 

176, 180, 182, 183, 197, 221, 2Z7, 241, 
386, 388, 395, 406, 418, 419, 422, 434, 
436, 454 

Maid's Tragedy, The, 217-218 

Malone, Edmond, 38, 39-40, 41, 43, 44, 
47. 49, 51, 53, 72, 7Z, 74, 80-81, 82, 
83, 92, 102, 103, 107, 108, 121, 126, 
127, 128, 131, 147, 154, 258, 386, 429, 
438, 443, 452 

Manductio, 148, 413 

Manners, Comedy of, 5, 168, 170, 174, 

177, 182, 184, 190, 221, 222, 224, 226, 
230, 238, 241, 252, 254, 258, 263, 275, 
276, 280, 287, 292, 314, 318, 336, 339, 
342, 379, 380, 381, 383, 387, 391-392 

Marlowe, 218 

Marpisa (in The Politician), 309-312, 

396 
Marshall, W., 139, 161, 409, 410 
Martyred Soldier, The. See Shirley, 

Henry 
Masque, 172, 174, 182, 194, 227, 244, 

394, 403 
Massinger, Philip, 43, 131, 180, 304 
Memorials of English Affairs. See 

Whitelocke 
Merchant of Venice, The, 180 
Merchant Taylors' School,. 13, 16, 17, 

20, 21, 24, 25, 33, 91, 385, 386, 429, 

439 

Merchant Taylors' School, A Register 
of the Scholars admitted to. See 
Robinson 

Merchant Taylors' School, MS. Regis- 
ter of, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 386, 429, 
439 

Me.r chant Taylors' School, The History 
of. See Wilson 

Mermaid Series, The, 420, 432 

Middleton, Thomas, 92, 182, 339, 392 

Midsummer Night's Dream, 325 

Mildmay, Sir Humphrey, 82, 426 

Milton, John, 4, 5, 397 

Modern Language Association, Publica- 
tions of the. See Tupper 

Montague, Walter, 76 



Montalto (in The Royal Master), 293- 

296, 395 
Moseley, Humphrey, 47, 59-61, 138, 

139, 141, 143, 144, 147, 387, 408, 409, 

410, 411, 412 
Moulton, C. W., 439 
Much Ado about Nothing, 169, 180, 182 
Murray, J. T., 57, 128, 439 

Nabbes, Thomas, 71 

Nachahmung spanischer Komodien in 

England, Die. See Stiefel 
Narcissus, or The Self Lover, 138, 140, 

409. See Eccho 
Nation, The, 439-440 
Neilson, W, A., 6, 280, 420, 421, 440- 

441, 447 
Newcastle, William Cavendish, Duke of, 

3, 136, 137, 153, 161, 38s, 424, 452 
New Theater in Drury Lane, 156 
Nicholas. See Treadle, Sir Nicholas 
-Night Walker, The, 72-73, 102, 124, 

132, 241, 408 
Nissen, P., 6, 7, 23, 36, 37, 38, 58-59, 

95, 97, 98, 102, 109, 112, 114, IIS, 

119, 123-124, 126, 128, 137, 383, 387, 

432, 441 
Noble and Gentle Men of England. 

See Shirley, E. P. 
North, E. D., 141, 409 
Notes and Queries, 11, 14, 448 
No Wit, no Help like a Woman's, 92, 93 
Nursery, The, 157, 414 

Oaths, 73 

Octavio (in The Royal Master), 298, 

301-302, 395 
O delta, To, 137 
Ogilby, John, 93, 120, 131, 153, 161, 

425 

Oldham, John, 436, 441 

Old Plays, A Collection of. See Bullen 

Old Plays, A Select Collection of. See 
Dodsley 

Oldrat (in The Example), 259, 393 

Old Wives' Tale. See Peele 

Opportunity, The, 81, 88, 90, 101, 105, 
106, 118, 132, 145, 154, 155, 239, 242, 
263-270, 27s, 288, 383, 389, 394, 395, 
407, 419, 428, 434, 439-440, 450 

Orseolo (in The Humorous Courtier), 
222, 393 

Othello, 201 

Otway, Thomas, 5, 383 

Owen, Captain Richard, 118 

Oxford University, 8, 33 

Page, William, 32, 442 
Parrott, J. M., 86-87, 420, 442 
..'•Pastoral, 170, 171-172, 174, 182, 244, 
388, 394, 407 



[466] 



INDEX 



Paulina (in The Sisters), 363-365, 385 
Peeke, Richard, 63, 64, 66, 423, 442 
Peele, George, 173 

Pembroke and Montgomery, Philip, Earl 
of; Lord Chamberlain, 125-126, 129, 
424, 426, 438 
Pepys,. Samuel, 155, 156, 157, 161, 229, 

442 
Phenik, G., 11, 151, 161, 409 
Philaster, 169, 180, 242, 274 
Phillips, Edward, 5, 397, 423, 436, 443 
Philoclea, 416 

Phoenix, The (The Cockpit; the Private 
House in Drury Lane), 41, 42, 43, 
44. 57, 71. 75. 84, 95, 96, 99, 100, 
Id, 105, 106, 123, 127, 128, 130, 152, 
385, 401, 402, 403. 404. 405, 406, 407, 
408, 413. 414, 426, 459 
Pike. See Peeke 

Piperollo (in The Sisters), 365-371, 392 
Plague in London, 92-93, iii, 120, 127, 

131 
Playford, J., 413 

Playhouse, The Elisabethan. See Law- 
rence, W. J. 
Plays and Puritans. See Kingsley 
Plays, A Select Collection of Old. See 

Dodsley 
Plays of the King's Men in 1641. See 

Chambers 
Plot, Sir Solitary (in The Example), 

258-259, 393 
Plan of this monograph, 6, 7, 382 
Poems, 137, 138-140, 145, 153, 161, 

408, 419, 434 
Poets, English, The Lives of the most 

famous. See Winstanley 
Politician, The, 47-54, 66, 104, 128, 
129, 130, 132, 144, 146, 147, 161, 289, 
292, 305. 307-312, 313, 314, 319, 320, 
381, 390, 396, 412, 419, 434, 436 
Politique Father, The, 46, 47-62, 108, 
132, 142, 147, 169, 242, 289, 292, 320, 
321, 336-342, 362, 379, 387, 389, 392. 
See The Brothers of 1652. 
Polonius, 170 
Private House in Drury Lane, See 

Phoenix 
Private House in Salisbury Court. See 

Salisbury Court 
Protectorate, 3 

Prynne, William, 4, yz, 76-79, 245, 443 
Publication, Right of, 125-126 
Publications of the Modern Language 

Association. See Tupper 
Pumicestone (in The Example), 258, 
393 



Quarrel with the Queen's men, Shir- 
ley's alleged, 109, 122-131, 133, 385 



Quarterly Review, The, 419, 429, 432, 
444 

Queen's men. See Servants, Her Maj- 
esty's 

Rawbone (in The Wedding), 179, 180, 

392 
Red Bull actors, 154 

Register Booke, The, Belonging to the 
Parish Church of S. Giles without 
Cripplegate. See St. Giles, Cripple- 
gate 
Register of Merchant Taylors' School, 
MS. See Merchant Taylors' School 

Register of the Scholars admitted to 
Merchant Taylors' School, A. See 
Robinson 
[Register <?/] St. Giles in ye Fields. 
1638-68. See St. Giles in the Fields 

Register of St. Mary Woolchurch. See 
St. Mary Woolchurch 

Registers of ... S. Mary Wodlnoth 
and S. Mary Woolchurch Haw, Tran- 
script of the. See St. Mary Wool- 
church 

Relation of the Heroic Play to the Ro- 
mances of Beaumont and Fletcher, 
The. See Tupper 

Relations of Shirley's Plays to the Elisa- 
bethan Drama, The. See Forsythe 

Representative English Comedies. See 
Gayley 

Restoration, The, 3, 153-154, 222, 277, 
280, 307, 379, 383 

Revels, Company of his Majesty's, 41, 
44. 51, 57. 127, 130, 402 

Revels, Master of. See Herbert, Sir 
Henry 

Revenge of Bussy D'Ambois, The. See 
Chapman 

Ristine, F. H., 445 

Rivers, Mr., 414-415, 432, 445 

Robinson, C. J., 445 

Robinson, Humphrey, 143, 144, 409, 
410, 411 

Romances of Beaumont and Fletcher, 
The Relation of the Heroic Play to 
the. See Tupper 

Romanische Forschungen. See Stiefel 

Romantic Comedy, 5, 169, 182, 184, 
191, 242, 247, 254, 262, 263, 27s, 288, 
292, 303. 330, 361, 362, 371, 379, 381, 
388, 391, 393. 394-395 

Romantic Tragedy, 5, 108, 169, 170, 
182, 184,' 198, 201, 220, 222, 254, 274, 
280, 287, 292, 307, 312, 344, 379, 381, 
383, 388, 391, 393. 395-396 

Rome, Church of, 31, 32, 33, 66-67, 68 

Romeo and Juliet, 169 

Rosania {The Doubtful Heir), 50, 54, 
60, 118, 124, 132, 142, 289 



n4673 



INDEX 



Rosaura, Duchess (in The Cardinal), 

347-351, 396, 459 
Roscius Anglicanus. See Downes,- J. 
Rosinda (in The Young Admiral), 250, 

395 

Royal Master, The, 94, 97-98, 99, loi, 
104, 109-114, 115, 117, 128, 129, 130, 
132, 145, 168, 225, 289, 291-303, 304, 
320, 381, 390, 392, 394, 395, 405, 418, 
419, 421, 424, 434, 447, 451, 455 

Rudiments of Grammar, The, 148, 412 

St. Albans Grammar School, 21, 31, 

32, 33, 35, 131, 425, 442 
Saint Albons [sic], The Tragedy of, 

104, 313, 454 
St. George, Sir Henry. See Visitation 

of London 
St. George, Sir Richard. See Visitation 

of London 
St. Giles in the Fields, 13, 160, 162, 

386, 429, 446 
St. Giles without Cripplegate, 13, 36, 

38, 68, 385, 445-446 
St. John's College, Oxford, 21, 22, 25, 

29, 31, 33- History of, see Hutton 
St. Mary Woolchurch, 16, 17, 20, 33, 

385, 423, 446 
St. Patrick for Ireland, 104, 106-107, 

119, 124, 128, 132, 145, 152, 289, 313- 

314, 319, 320, 381, 390, 394, 408, 416, 

419, 430, 434, 436 
St. Patrick's Purgatory, The Legend of. 

See Krapp 
Salisbury Court, Private House in, 41, 

44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 57, 99, 103, 104, 

127, 128, 129, 130, 146, 147, 291, 292, 

385, 402, 411, 412, 459 
Satyr, A. The Person of Spencer is 

brought in. See Oldham 
Schelling, F. E., 6, 46, 76, 176, 186, 

221, 224, 244-245, 255, 306, 312, 371, 

424, 446-447 
Schipper, J., 6, 87-88, 303, 313, 421, 

447 
School for Scandal, The. See Sheridan 
School of Complement, The. See Love 

Tricks 
Sciarrha (in The Traitor), 204-207, 

23S, 396 
Segar, Sir William, 15 
Select Collection of Old Plays, A. See 

Dodslej' 
Serger, R., 97, 405 
Servants, Her Majesty's, of the Phce- 

nLx, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 57, 71, 73, 

74, 75, 82, 84, 95, 96, 100, loi, 105, 

106, 116, 121, 122-131, 152, 231, 385, 

401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 

413, 414, 416, 439 
Servants, Her Majesty's, of Salisbury 



Court, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 62, 99, 
103, 104, 107, 109, 118, 122-131, 133, 
146, 147, 291, 292, 385, 411, 412, 439 

Servants, His Majesty's, 46, 49, 51, 52, 
53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 99, 107, 108, 
109, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 
133, 335, 425, 439 

Servants, The Duke of York's, 414 

Shakespeare, An Essay on the Learning 
of. See Farmer 

Shakspeare, William, The Plays and 
Poems of. See Malone 

Shakspere, 4, 5, 37, 134, 169, 170, 173, 
180, 181, 182, 191, 201, 216, 218, 219, 
221, 242, 274, 278, 286, 288, 292, 303, 
311, 312, 318, 325, 327, 339, 378, 379, 
381, 387, 391, 392, 397, 435 

Sharlie. See Shirley 

Shepherds' Paradise, The. See Mon- 
tague 

Sheridan, R. B., 277 

Sherley. See Shirley 

Shiel, Richard L., 418, 447 

Shiels, Robert. See Cibber 

Shirley, Sir Charles, Bart., 9, 10, 12 

Shirley, Christopher, son of the dram- 
atist, 159 

Shirley, Lady Dorothy, 9 

Shirley, E. P., 9 note, 10, 11, 12, 13, 
14, 447-448 

Shirley, Ford and. See Xeilson 

Shirley, Frances, wife of the dramatist, 

160, 162 

Shirley, Sir George, Bart., 9 

Shirley ials. Sachell], George, grandson 
of the dramatist, 159 

Shirley, Henry, dramatist, 11, 12, 13, 
430, 435, 448, 453 

Shirley, Sir Henry, Bart., 9, 10 

Shirley, James, The Dramatist. Par- 
entage, 8, 34, 385; first hypothesis, 8- 
10; second hypothesis, 11-14; third 
hypothesis, 14-15; probable solution, 
15-20. Arms, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 
151, 448, 454. Spelling of name, 13. 
Birth, 16, 33, 34. Baptismal record, 
17, 19, 33- Schooling, 20-21, 34. Uni- 
versity career, 21-31. Ministry, 31- 
32, 33. Religion, 31-32, 33, 66-67, 68. 
Teaching, 31-32, 33, 34, 136, 138, 

161. Removal from St. Albans to 
London, 35-38, 69, 131. Loss of pre- 
ferment, 109, II 9-1 22, 133. Removal 
from London to Dublin, 91-94, 120- 
122, 131. In Ireland, 51-52, 89, 91- 
94. Visit to London, in 1636/7, 109, 
iio-iii, 112, 114-115, 132; in 1638/9, 
109, 115-117, 132. Removal from 
Dublin to London, 107, 109, 116, 117- 
119, 132. As soldier, 136-137. Fam- 
ily, 37, 68, 136, 137, 158-160. Pri- 



1:4683 



INDEX 



vate life, 385-386. Will, 37, 68, 138, 
158-160, 161, 386, 448. Fire of Lon- 
don, 161. Death, 162. Burial, 162. 
Portraits, 8, 10, 11, 12, 23, 139, 150- 
151, 161, 409, 410, 447. Revivals of 
his plays, 154-158, 161. Catalogues 
of his published works, loi, 144- 
145, 386, 408, 411. His publishers 
and booksellers, see Allot, Baker, 
Constable, Cooke, Crooke, Eggles- 
feild. Grove, Leake, Lowndes, Mose- 
ley, Playford, Robinson, Serger, 
Speed, Stephenson, Whitaker, Wil- 
liams. Chronology, 6, 165, 239, 289, 
291,. 384-387, 396. Predramatic pe- 
riod, 3-34. First dramatic period, 8, 
35-69, 165-238, 388, 390. Second 
dramatic period, 8, 70-90, 239-288, 
388-389,' 390. Third dramatic period, 
8, 91-135, 289-38I,. 389-390. Post- 
dramatic period, 8, 136-162. Realis- 
tic plays, 168, 169, 170, 177, 181, 191, 
193, 221, 224, 230, 231, 238, 241, 242, 
253, 256, 262, 275, 287, 305, 307, 319, 
321, 342, 343, 362, 380, 381, 387, 388, 
389, 390, 391-393, 397- Romantic 
plays, 5, 108, 168-169, 170, 174, 191, 
221, 226, 238, 241,. 242, 245, 246, 247, 
252, 254, 256, 262, 263, 275, 280, 287, 
288, 292, 293, 304, 305, 318, 319, 321, 
32s, 330, 342, 362, 36s, 379, 380, 381, 
387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 393-396, 397. 
Dedications, 115-116, 119, 125. Pro- 
logues, 93, 140, 409. Plots, 170-172, 
174-176, 177-180,. 181, 184-188, 191- 

195, 198-202, 222-22Z, 220,-22^, 226- 
22T, 227-222,, 233-235, 237, 243-244,' 
245-246, 247-250, 254-257, 259-260, 
263-267, 270-272, 277-278, 281-286, 
287-288, 293-299, 305-307, 307-309, 
313, 314-319, 321-324, 325-326, 330- 

335, 336-338, 344-345, 363-365, 372- 
378, 393-394, 395-396. Scenes, 172- 
173, 195, 273-274, 286, 287-288, 307, 
309-311, 346-347. Characterization, 
172, 176, 188-190, 195-197, 202-212, 
217-219, 223, 226, 227, 229, 230-233, 
236, 238,. 250, 257-258, 258-259, 267- 
268, 269-270, 272-273, 278-280, 287- 
288, 307, 326-327, 338-339, 347-361, 
365-371, 378-379, 392-393, 395-396. 
Dialogue, 300-302. Verse, 212-216, 
250-252, 327-330, 339-342, 343, 361. 
Sources, 173, 180, 229, 236-237, 263, 
268-270, 324-325, 383. Characteristic 
qualities, 6,. 391-396. Development 
as a dramatist, 6, 387-391, 397. Spe- 
cific references to Works, 17, 21, 22, 
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 36, 40, 42, 43, 
47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 66, 70, 77,' 79, 
80, 84, 91, 92, 94, 108, 110, 111, 116, 



117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 135, 137, I40,. 
146, 147, 151, 153, 174, 181, 187, 188, 
189, 190, 193, 196, 197, 204, 205, 206, 
210, 214, 216, 222, 224, 228, 229, 232, 
236, 252, 258, 259, 271, 273, 274, 278, 
279, 280, 281, 293, 299, 300, 302, 306, 
307, 3", 312, 314, 317, 330, 334, 335j 
336, 341, 342, 346, 350, 353, 356, 360, 
361, 365, 367, 368, 371, 418-419, 422, 
429, 430, 432, 434, 444-445 
Shirley, James: Ein Beitrag zur eng- 
lischen Litteraturgeschichte. See Nis- 
sen 
Shirley, James, sein Leben und seine 

Werke. See Schipper 
Shirley, James. See Swinburne 
Shirley, James, in DNB. See Ward 
Shirley, Jam,es: The Royal Master. See 

Ward 
Shirley, James, father of the dramatist, 

17, 19, 30, 33, 446 

Shirley, James, son of the dramatist, 159 
Shirley, James, of London, goldsmith, 

14, 15, 33, 38, 454 
Shirley, John, 1 366 (?) -1456, 447 
Shirley [John], sein Leben und Werken. 

See Gartner, O. 
Shirley, John, son of Ralph, 12 
Shirley, John, of London, goldsmith, 14, 

33, 454 
Shirley, Lawrinda, daughter of the 

dramatist, 159 
Shirley, Mary, daughter of the dram- 
atist, 159 
Shirley, Mathias, son of the dramatist, 

37, 68, 159, 386, 454 
Shirley, Ralph, 12 
Shirley, Ralph, of Wistonson, 14 
Shirley, Robert, of Wistonson, 14 
Shirley, Sir Robert, Bart., 9, 12 
Shirley [als. Sachell], Standerdine, son- 
in-law of the dramatist, 159 
Shirley, Thomas, eldest son of William, 

18, 19 

Shirley, Sir Thomas, 13 

Shirley, William, grandfather of the 

dramatist, 18 
Shirleys of Sussex, 8, 10, 11-14, 33 
Shirleys of Warwickshire, 8-10, 33, 151, 

447-448 
Sidney, Sir Philip, 243 
Simple, Sir Gervase (in Changes, or 

Love in a Maze), 227, 393 
Sisters, The, 55, 60, 108, 132, 133-135, 

142, 143, 145, 289, 293, 320, 362-372, 

379, 390, 392, 394, 395, 410, 419 
Six New Playes, 46, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 

61, 142-145, 161, 387, 409, 410, 434, 

435, 455 
S., J., 416, 417, 445 



1:4693 



INDEX 



Smith, G. Barnett, 432, 448-449 

Some Account of the English Stage. 
See Genest 

Somerset House, Prerogative Court of 
Canterbury, 448 

Spanish Armada, 64 

Spanish plot, 56, 58, 61 

Specimens of English Dramatic Poets. 
See Lamb 

Speed, S., 152, 414 

Stage, A Complete History of. See 
Dibdin 

Stage, A General History of. See Chet- 
wood 

Stage, An Enlarged History of the. 
See Malone 

Stage, Annals of. See Collier 

Stage, History of the. See Malone 

Stage, Some Account of the English. 
See Genest 

Stanley, Thomas, 58-59, 61, 137, 138, 
161, 387 

Star Chamber, Court of the, 76 

Startup (in The Constant Maid), 319, 
392 

Stationers, A Transcript of the Register 
of the Company of, 423, 449 

Stationers' Company, 425, 438, 449 

Stationers' Register, 27, 30, 41, 43, 44, 
63, (>^, 74, 75, 81, 82, 84, 95, 97, 98, 
99, 100, loi, 102, 104, 105, no, 114, 
115, 118, 119, 131, 140, 289, 291, 293, 
313, 319, 384, 386, 389, 401, 423, 430, 
431, 449 

Stemmata Shirleiana. See Shirley, 
E. P. 

Stephenson, John, 142, 410 

Stiefel, A. L., 247, 263, 268-270, 383, 
449-450, 454, 455 

Strafford, Earl of, Lord Deputy of Ire- 
land, 94, 97, 98, 100, 109, no, 112, 
113, 114, 119, 122, 132^ 13s, 293, 405 

Summaries. 

Life of Shirley: Predramatic Period, 
33-34; First Dramatic Period, 68-69; 
Second Dramatic Period, 90; Third 
Dramatic Period, 131-133; Postdra- 
matic Period, 161. Works of Shirley: 
First Dramatic Period, 237-238; Sec- 
ond Dramatic Period, 287-288; Third 
Dramatic Period, 380-381. Conclu- 
sion, 382-397 

Sussex, Shirleys of, 8, 10, 11-14, 33 

Swinburne, A. C, 6, 84-85, 174, 202, 
216-219, 226, 232-233, 260-261, 371, 
397, 450-453 

Theatrum Poetarum. See Phillips, 

Edward 
Thorndike, A. H., 304, 305, 453 
Three to One. See Peeke, Richard 



Tierney, M. A., 11, 453 

Tirso de Molina, 263, 264, 268-270, 
324, 383, 450 

To the Reader, 409 

Tourneur, Cyril, 219 

Toy, The, Prologue to, 93-94 

Tragedies, 5 

Tragedies of Chapman, The. See Leh- 
man 

Tragedy. See Thorndike 

Tragedy, Romantic. See Romantic trag- 
edy 

Tragicomedy, 247, 252, 263, 275, 280, 
281, 284, 286, 288, 304, 327, 371 

Tragicomedy, English. See Ristine 

Traitor, The, 43, 69, 81-82, 90, loi, 
108, 126, 145, 154, 155, 165, 168, 169, 
174, 183, 184, 198-220, 221, 222, 225, 
227, 237, 238, 241, 247, 260, 379, 381, 
388, 393, 396, 403, 414, 418, 419, 420, 
428, 432, 434, 443, 445, 451-452, 454 

Transcript of the Registers of ... S. 
Mary Woolnoth and S. Mary Wool- 
church Haw. See St. Mary Wool- 
church 

Treadle, Sir Nicholas (in The Witty 
Fair One), 188-190, 197, 238, 393 

Triumph of Beauty, The, 139, 409, 412, 
419, 434 

Triumph of Peace, The, 4, 79-81, 90, 
loi, 120, 145, 241, 403, 419, 420, 433, 
437, 456 

Tupper, James W., 453 

Turner, Henry, 127, 130, 147, 385 

Twelfth Night, 180, 191, 303 

Two Bookes of Epigrammes. See Ban- 
croft, Thomas 

Two Gentlemen of Verona, 180, 325 

Union Theological Seminary, Library 
of, 444 

Vainman (in The Example), 258, 393 
Vega-Carpio, Lope de, 4, 247, 249-250, 

450, 453-454 
Via ad Latinam Linguam Complanata, 

141-142, 153, 161, 409-410, 434 
Visitation of London, 14, 38, 435, 445, 

454 
Vittori (in The Young Admiral), 250, 

395 
Volpone, 186, 190, 259 

Ward, Sir A. W., 6, 7, 28, 32, 38, 40, 

43, 85, 137, 152, 229, 233, 363, 371, 

384, 421, 429, 430, 454-455 
Warwickshire, Shirleys of, 8-10, 33, 

151, 447-448 
Webster, John, 5, 173, 201, 218, 219, 

361, 383, 396, 449 



[470] 



INDEX 



Wedding, The, 38, 39, 40-42, 69, 74, 
75, 90, loi, 145, 165, 169, 170, 177- 
181, 182, 183, 187, 190, 221, 222, 237, 
257, 3^7, 388, 391, 392, 394, 401, 402, 
413, 419, 433, 434, 454. 455, 459 

Whitaker, R., 104, 107, 408 

White Friars, 138, 158, 160, 161 

Whitelocke, B., 80, 456 

Wife's Relief: or. The Husband's Cure, 
The, 415, 417 

Wild Goose Chase, The, 168 

Williams, J., 102, 104, 106, 124, 244, 
407, 430 

Wilson, H. B., 91, 456 

Winstanley, W., 456 

Witty Fair One, The, 41, 69, 74, 75, 
90, loi, 14s, 156, 165, 169, 183, 184- 
191, 195, 197, 198, 221, 229, 237, 253, 
338, 387, 388, 391, 393, 402-403, 419, 
420, 428, 433 

Women actors, 76 

Wood, Anthony a, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 20, 
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 



32, 35, 91, 136, 137-138, 152-153, 
153-154. 158, 162, 384, 385, 401, 423, 
424, 425, 426, 427, 429, 435, 456, 456- 
458 

Wood, Anthony a. Life of, 457-458 

Works and Poems of James Shirley, 
The Dramatic, 418-419, 422, 427, 429, 
432, 434. See: American Quarterly 
Review; Dyce; GifFord; Quarterly Re- 
view; Shirley 

Works of Mr. John Oldham; The. See 
Oldham 

Wright, A., 435 

Wright, James, 427, 458-459 

Wycherley, William, 5 

York, 133, 135 

York's Servants, The Duke of. See 
Servants 

Young Admiral, The, 4, 71, 72, 73-74, 
90, 95, loi, 114, 120, 132, 144, 168, 
239, 242, 247-252, 253, 275, 288, 325, 
389. 394. 395, 404, 419, 434, 450. 454 



1:471] 



Ii 



VITA 

ARTHUR HUNTINGTON NASON, the author of 
Jl\, this monograph, was born In Augusta, Maine, Feb- 
ruary 3, 1877, the son of Charles Henry and Emma 
(Huntington) Nason. He was educated in the public 
schools of Augusta, Maine, and at Bowdoin College, 
where he was graduated A.B., in 1899, and A.M., pro 
merito, in 1903. He was a teacher of English in the 
Maine Wesleyan Seminary from 1899 to 1902; in the 
Penn Charter School, Philadelphia, in the fall of 1902, 
and in Bowdoin College in the winter and spring of 1903. 
He studied English and Education under Professors G. 
P. Baker, C. L. Young, C. N. Greenough, and P. H. 
Hanus, in the Harvard Summer Sessions of 1899, 1900, 
and 1902 ; and English and History in Columbia Univer- 
sity — in full residence in 1903-4 and 1904-5, and in occa- 
sional courses thereafter — under Professors G. R. Car- 
penter, Trent, Matthews, Neilson, Brewster, Krapp, 
Lawrence, Ayres, Hathaway, A. H. Thorndike, and Rob- 
inson. For the year 1904-5, he was awarded the Univer- 
sity Fellowship in English. In 1905, he was appointed 
instructor in English in New York University; and, in 
February, 19 13, assistant professor of English. Since 
1 9 10, he has held also the instructorship in English in 
Union Theological Seminary. Besides the present vol- 
ume, he Is the author of Heralds and Heraldry in Jon- 
son's Plays (1907), Talks on Theme-Writing (1909), 
Short Themes (1909; enlarged edition, 19 10), and tS/^or/ 
Themes and Long (1915). 

1:4731 



i! 



Deaddffied using the BooWceeperpfocess. 
NeutrafizHig agent Magnesium Owte 
Treatment Date: Feb. 2009 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADERJN COLLEimONS PRESERVATION 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



ii I i'^'ii 



P 1; lii.ii'ilil 



•\' M '111 



l^lli' I 



lli'l', I I 



'l' ' li* ''111 F Ml ll'l' 



!''V,|i'. 



It-'''' I ' ' " 



i'lii 



N !'■ ' n' '''i' '" 1:,'r,'l'!Ii 



.1' '.;,!; 



!:■ I, !■ 



|i r , I 1 1 



'''!iii il 



iJli 



i;,i 



iiii'i i,;i 



111 •' ' 



ii.lll ' Il il.l'M 



Il 1*1 



li"lMli 



;ll 






11'' II' 



;; I 



i'fi!/!!!:!,;:!'!::! ui'JVl';'''''''' 



t I 



'i,'l'':l|i:,;! I'll 






I'! 
., ' '' 

liii'i'! 



I IMI 



iliii! 

i ti 



iii'i 



,1 , ir 



I': M Hi 



''I,!. 



'' ' ",'11' r 
I ! 'd'l ' 

I ii'lii'I 



ill:>!i 

I 

I I,.' u ii'iiH 



li, 



I I 



m 



I'-ii''' 

'tii'iii; 



i! i' 'I' '■ 
l' ,11'.' 



I II' -I 



p' 



Il 11 III I 
llllil I 

111 



'i!iMl!|i, 

lil'l'iii 



,,l'!i'i|:i';qMi 



liili! 



.Ill 



''iiini 
'liiji'i 



I I ' :'' 






. !• ;,illi t 



^' '■ ■Im :. 



I!lil 1(1' 
I ,1 

, !l 



ii 



i ! 



I ' (il '! 




! .1 



I lli 



I , , I • 



lit •' ; 

I iin 



MlMi 



iii,iii;i« 



"'^"^■""iijliliiiljiiiifli 



II: 

|l ' 



>! II 

, I., 



I 



^ '* I hi 



ii'li i 



i 



i! li,M 



M Nil 







lilill 



